is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. amen. >> made the god of peace, who brought from the dead our lord jesus and raised george mcgovern in to his eternal and everlasting arms making a complete and everything good and just so that you may do his will, so that you may go forth and do what you already know to do, so that you may do what displeasing in god's sight. -- what is pleasing in god's sight. amen. ♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪

>> the early billings were not propitious. during the very first days, the japanese would occupy singapore, they would defeat -- they would occupy the philippines, they needed that of oil to continue the war. the occupy these areas. by the same token, the americans were not only defeated

by the japanese, but in many ways humiliated by the japanese. 76,000 permit -- prisoners, about 11,000 of them were americans. the way in which they were treated was nothing less than brutal. this was the real thing. the japanese be headed many of them. many of those american soldiers and the filipinos died of starvation. this was war in its worst form. the americans are not going to forget that. they're going to pay the japanese back. the war and the pacific was a racial war. it became a racial war. the japanese mr. did the americans and the americans, in turn, returned the favor.

>> this weekend, world war ii, saturday night at 8:00 and midnight eastern on c-span3. >> i like the coverage because it is diversified. it covers all sides, independent, democratic, and republican views. it is not boring because it is so topical. current events, which is very interesting to me. i love what is going on right now and they're talking about issues that a matter to americans right now. >> he watches c-span on >> communications. brought to you as a public service by your television providers. >> ahead of the election, we have been looking at the so- called battleground states.

today's focus was on wisconsin. he will your the efforts by democrats and republicans in the state. and never viewed -- an overview from a reporter with the milwaukee journal sentinel. >> we're going to look at a battleground states to give you a sense of what is going on the ground, and to talk about the factors that will make up issues that people consider as they go to election day. joining us today as we focus on the state of wisconsin is craig gilbert. thank you for joining us. a couple of facts according to what we have gathered when it comes to this date. when it comes to wisconsin, we are looking at 10 electoral votes. we're looking at an unemployment rate of 7.3%.

guest: our job growth has been slower than the national average, slower than ohio. better than nevada at the other end of the spectrum. kind of in that gray area for president obama and for governor walker, we had a fierce debate over the recall of gov. walker. the economy and jobs were central to that debate. a lot of conflicting statistics. somewhat sluggish jobs growth.

nothing that would disqualify a president or assure his reelection. how does the state breakdown? you have to look at our political history. wisconsin is a swing state and that is why we are talking about it. . a little misleading, though, because it is often extremely close and often very close to where the country is as a whole. it was even closer in 2000 that was in 2004. you had this big blowout victory for barack obama in 2008. democrats have tended to dominate the u.s. senate elections, but we had a big

republican tidal wave in 2010. if they win the senate seat this november, it will be the first time since the 1950's we have had two republican senators. it is a state that swings back and forth between the two parties. host: what areas of the state trend republican? is there a place where the two meet? guest: you have basic areas and swing areas. the classic bass areas are around the milwaukee and madison. the classic bass areas for the republicans are suburban counties in southeastern wisconsin. heading up north along the eastern coast of wisconsin as well. a lot of wisconsin really does swing.

northeastern wisconsin around green bay and western wisconsin song huge for obama in 2008 and back for the republicans in the gubernatorial races of 2010 and the recall fight of 2012. there were counties that barack obama won by 10 points and scott walker won by 20 or 30 points. these very competitive tickets splitters and those are going to be counties to watch in northeastern wisconsin and central wisconsin and western wisconsin. host: how does early voting factor into election day? guest: it is less than a factor in wisconsin that it is in the other states. it has been going, but not at the same level. it is technically known as

absentee voting. the window for early voting is narrower now. it is also harder to track in wisconsin because we do not have registration by party. it is little more difficult. i did not think we can say with confidence to has the advantage in the early voting in wisconsin, but the early vote will be significant, but it will not be at the level of states like colorado. host: are voters required to show a photo i.d.? guest: a law was passed under republicans after they took power in 2010 to do that, but it has -- it is held up in court, said they will not be required to show photo id in the selection. host: what systems are in place within a state and what is used to make sure those systems are upheld? guest: optical scanners are the

prevailing system in wisconsin. it has proven to be a reliable system and it is held up under some recounts that we have had. that has the virtue of being easy to administer and also preserving a paper record. that is the system in wisconsin. we have had some close elections and we give that controversies and debates over the voting system and over the integrity of the elections and i am sure those will continue. if it is a close election in 2012, anything like it was in in 2004 and 2000, when the margin was half a percentage point, i'm sure those debates will continue. host: as far as people would turn out to vote, what is the history? guest: balco -- thou shalt vote

in wisconsin. our turnout was hired in 2004 than it was in 2008. barack obama opened up this big lead at the end of the campaign and people -- it was still extremely high, but in 2004, you had almost three-quarters of the voting age adults voting and the state. in some parts of the state, where turnout is even higher, you are talking about 80 or 85%, 90% of registered voters are voting. that has been part of the political culture in wisconsin. we have seen extraordinary turnouts, remarkable turnout for governor in this recall fight. we had a judicial race this spring, a non-partisan race in

which the turnout was higher than it was in some states for governor in 2010. host: the state of wisconsin, a battleground state, our guest joining us talking about -- he joins us as a national political reporter. if you want to contribute to the conversation when it comes to politics or the fate of the state of list -- or the state of wisconsin, here is how you can do so -- we have set aside a special line for those of you live in a state of wisconsin. give us a call. where do each of the candidates stand when it comes to the state? guest: it is a close race. i would say that maybe not quite a 50-50. if you average out all the

polling, president obama has a two or three point lead. we have not had much new polling in the last week. the raise in the public polling narrowed -- it has gone through some of and downs. president obama has led in the vast majority of public polls, but the lead was more substantial in the first part of the year. it narrowed after paul ryan was picked for the republican ticket. it opened up again after the convention. it is back down in not one-three point range. if you look added in the context of the battlegrounds, we are one of the better states for president obama among the eight or nine states that are being contested. there is a potential fire wall

if you look at ohio and wisconsin, it is only potential because all the states are very close. we are seeing pretty fierce republican effort as well to try to flip wisconsin. that would have a dramatic impact on the electoral map. we are seeing quite a flurry of candidate visits in the next week. joe biden is here today. mitt romney will be your mind a bit president obama will be here tuesday. paul ryan will be here on wednesday. host: how much of it comes from the ripple effect of gov. walker? guest: there has been an interesting debate over what the recall told us about the presidential election. you could overstate the implications in some ways because the recall by definition is a pretty extraordinary event

and it was pretty clear in the recall fight back some voters were voting against the recall process. they did not think it was appropriate. you had about between 15 and 20% of the people that voted for republican scott walker said they favored barack obama for president. in the polling, every couple of weeks throughout the year, it has been pretty consistent that about one-tenth of the electorate, nine or 10% of voters said they approve of both republican governor and democratic president. the recall was not a perfect barometer, but that tells you that republicans have had a lot of success winning elections in wisconsin. they have a very motivated base that will turn out. they also have paul ryan on the ticket. both sides have reasons -- have

positive indicators to look at going into this election and most recently, the big obama victory in 2008 and the big republican victories in 2010 and 2012. host: wisconsin come up first, democrats line. caller: could you please explain to me, i was watching regarding that company that said you have to vote for mitt romney. otherwise, you would be fired. you would this your retirement. guest: think what the caller is referring to is that we had a communication from the head of the company to the employees to vote for running for president.

as i understand, the message was not vote for mitt romney or you will lose your job or be fired. the message was that reelecting president obama would hurt the company and away that could impact the employees. it was taken by some employees as kind of inappropriate at a minimum. we have had some reaction to that, obviously. host: here is a tweet from a viewer. there is no way obama will draw the turn out the public unions and trade for the recall. guest: this is a presidential election. the real question that gets at is whether there'll be some enthusiasm a gap between the two

sides. we will have to wait and see. i believe the turnout will be high on both sides. we saw that in 2004. we have had elections in wisconsin and what one side has been more energized and the others. in 2010, republicans were energized. in 2008, a democrat for more energized. i think both sides will be motivated and wisconsin. both sides have proven their ability to turn out their vote. i do not doubt turnout will be there on both sides. one side does have a little bit of that advantage. we will have to wait and see. host: republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how does he feel about the 14 members of the senate house or

what ever -- representatives, excuse me, of wisconsin when they let the state on the vote there? how does he feel about that? i also want to talk about the gender issue. i have a son that just turned 18. he was a 1 month old when i graduated from high school. he is 28 now. beautiful son. i feel bad because they're definitely issues with the ladies. host: will leave it there. go to the first part of the question. guest: is talking about the preceding to the governor recall when the governor scott walker proposed rolling back bargaining for public employees of the tactic that democrats used to

try to stop that from happening was a bunch of legislative process. he had a big protest and this year but the controversy. that led to the recall. i do not have any personal -- republicans were outraged about it. they were out is about the proposal the governor made. that said on both sides of the intensity of the polarize state. certainly the public polling wast governor walkiner positive since all this happened. one of the features of his standing has been this this polarization. democrats almost universally disliking him and republicans universally approving of him. it is a very divided state in a

lot of ways. it is not a new thing. we have the same thing in 2004 with the bush and carry election. we are starting to -- bush and kerry election. we are seeing this in the senate state as well. host: what about paul ryan in wisconsin? guest: he is a hometown guy. it is not clear how much of a bruise that gives the republican ticket in wisconsin either it -- it is not clear what kind of boost that gives the republican ticket in wisconsin. you have that happening as well. i think it is one reason why the republicans feel like they have a shot in wisconsin.

they have a wisconsin person on the ticket. it certainly cannot hurt to give the ticket a little bit of a bounce after he got elected. it is not clear right now from the surveys on how much of a bonus that really is. wisconsin host: -- host: wisconsin. you are up next. caller: good morning. a lady previously was talking about the news report about the company's that was going to take the people's benefits, etc. the company has come out and told employees that if they do not vote for romney and obama get in, next year they will not be getting any raises. i have called the d.a. office. he wants the name of the fellow that said this. i will not give it out because i

do not want to get fired. i wonder how many companies are doing this? is anyone doing anything about this? i know that you are a republican at the milwaukee journal. are they checking into anything in this? host: businesses have been reacting to either leaders as far as their proposals are concerned. guest: it might be news to some republican papers. as far as the question about what is going on in some of these companies, reported as one case that we talked about earlier. we would report any other cases we became aware of. there is a state law that speaks to this that prohibits companies

from basically trying to tell their employees how to vote, as i understand it to. i think i recently read about a similar case in michigan. the one in wisconsin is the only one i am aware of at this time. the others, i do not know. host: here is a tweet from a viewer. has the u.s. senate race helped or hurt either party at the presidential level? or vice versa? guest: the democratic candidate is a congresswoman from madison. the republican candidate is tommy thompson. it is quite a race. it has been a race in which it has surprised a lot of people. a former governor thompson was

seen as the favorite. he was seen as the canada to had a history of attracting moderate and conservative democrats-he was seen as a candidate who had a history of attracting moderate and conservative democrats. what is happening in the polling is interesting. the people -- his crop of supporters and has really diminished. he has had a tough republican primary that he barely squeaked through. there was a time after the primary when he was out of money. the democrats had a lot of negative advertisements. it has tightened up again since then. it is a very close race. she has been ahead in more polls than behind. no one knows what will happen. it has gotten pretty negative. virtually all of the i

appetizing you see in this race is-. -- virtually all of the advertising you see in this race is negative. the interesting thing in this race is what the impact of the presidential race will be on the senate race. obviously if the democrats do better on the ticket, the better it is for the congresswoman. and vice versa. most people think you'll get a better percentage of the vote than running, but by how much? we do not know. it has big national implications. the control of the senate is in the balance. host: independent line. good morning. caller: good morning.

this is an important phone call. i want to alert the american people to an author on "book tv." i recommend everyone to watch it on c-span on the weekends. you can go on the internet and see it. the author is named mallory factor. he wrote a book "shadowboxes." i challenge everyone to read this book and see the interview on "book tv." also -- host: to have a question about wisconsin? caller: i do not care what color obama is. the most important thing i care about is what he is doing to this country. he has taken the people who are in charge of the airports and

homeland security and all of these people are unionized. even military personnel are unionized. host: thank you. tennessee caller. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am calling in to say that mr. romney will not say anything. he is running for president for power. if he is elected, we will going back to being barefoot and pregnant and the states all-star becoming small countries -- all of the state will start becoming a small countries and they will have all the power. host: before we talk to you, up we were talking about gender issues. and she was talking about the

social and gender issues. guest: like anywhere else, they go into i think the way that people line up in both parties. i do not know if it is any truth or less in wisconsin than any other state. it is part of the debate. host: california. independent line. you are on. caller: out a. -- ok. i wanted to mention really quick that i think there is a problem was semantics. what i mean by that is that everyone looks at romney from the standpoint of a man who is a builder. he is a dismantling.

it is very rare that you find someone who is good at building and is excellent at it. he plans to dismantle the social security and health care plans and anything having to do it any power from the unions. i encourage everyone in california to pay attention to proposition 32. what they're trying to do is take away the ability of unions to negotiate with the ceo's and big business. host: we will leave it there. let's talk about the senate side. anything of note to you on the house side? guest: the republican incumbents are favored to win any. ownof them is paul ryan's

race. is on the ballot for vice president and for congress. he is running a lot of ads. his opponent has been able to raise some money nationally. paul ryan is the favorite. it is an interesting situation. we have two republican freshmen. one is from up north in northern wisconsin, john duffy. they both have contested races. they're both favored to win a those races. they are contested races. they have been targeted by the national party at different times during the election. that is also part of a picture of. it has not gotten as much attention. we also have a party -- a battle

for the state legislature as well. it is a full ballot in wisconsin. host: if someone said to you, what should we watch for in a wisconsin on election night? what would you say to them? guest: i think the turnout will be sky high. i will be interested to see what the interplay is between those two races are. it is very polarized and nationalize these elections have become. we will see if we get split outcomes. we'll see if we get an election that is much like 2000 and 2004 in wisconsin. or maybe wisconsin will perform better for democrats. that is also happened on vacation. wisconsin seems back-and-forth in the patterns.

host: our guest covers national politics with the milwaukee journal. thank you for your time. >> mitt romney continues his campaign for the presidency. today he was in iowa and making his final argument on the economy to be chief executive. we'll have those remarks for you tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. , mitt romney and president obama are the only ones are running for president. we will share the third-party presidential candidates debate on sunday on c-span. >> i think we have to have the discussion about political ideology in this country when we talk about progressivism and where it come from. it is real easy to talk about marxism and socialism. as far as what happened --

someone came up to me at the speaker's lobby and asked a couple of questions. how do you feel about the fact the majority of people believe that the majority of people on capitol hill is republicans? i thought we live in an america where people have the freedom of speech and freedom of expression? i will not be afraid of people because they get upset. >> the reason why i decided to run for public office is because of the extremism of the tea party. at the end of the day, whether it is your family or your business, you need to be able to work across the aisle and do what is best for all americans and for your district and your state and your country. when to call people communist that is not the way to get things done. when you are focused on that, there is no way you can reach across the aisle and do what is

best for everyone. >> of the key house and senate races on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org/campaign2012. >> i like c-span coverage because it is diversified. it covers all sides -- independent, democratic, and republican views. the current events are very interesting. i love what is going on right now when they talk about issues that matter to americans right now. >> michael watches c-span and cox mitigation. c-span is right to buy a public service by your television provider. -- has been brought to you by your television provider. >> next a look at the state from

the republican point of view. this is about half an hour. host: we're looking at the battleground state of wisconsin as part of an ongoing series that we are doing here at "washington journal." what you think is going on? guest: in wisconsin and 2010, we went the shift from the democrats. borrower two congressional seats. they slept -- we won two congressional seats. there was a switch in the state. with the national economic situation, it has hit wisconsin

hard. you saw that reflected in the polls. now you're seeing it here and the presidential race as well. host: what does mitt romney have to do to secure the state? guest: we have been through so much. we have had recall elections in the last two years in the legislature and with the governor's race. governor walker won by a bigger margin than in his first race. we have a lot of momentum. a lot of this is making the final sale, but also turn out in wisconsin. republicans probably have the best ground game. probably, we do have the best round game. maybe even and that to the buyers in working politics. we have 25 offices open statewide. we have hit almost $2.6 million

and almost 3 million calls. hundreds of thousands of doors. we're organized here in wisconsin like we never have been. we have, and with the momentum. we are feeling pretty good. host: are the areas of the state where you are concentrating more over the others? guest: a good share of the vote is between green bay and milwaukee and madison. that is about 70% of the state vote. oftentimes presidential candidates on both sides focus on that area. we have active campaigns and all 72 counties. republicans generally do well statewide. we kind of match the democrats person for person. one of the things that governor walker successfully did is that

we had a republican victory. frankly, we have not won in a long time in the state. the numbers coming out about recall our numbers we have never seen before. a falling those numbers we have organizations and volunteers and all of that -- following those numbers, we have organizations and volunteers and all that. it was paul ryan's addition to the ticket, we are as optimistic as we can be in. host: chairman of the republican party of wisconsin joins us, brian schimming, for our discussion continuing look at the battleground state. our first call for him is milwaukee. on our democrats line, doris, good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to just say milwaukee -- we have children that graduated from high school that does not have any medical care. they apply for the medical care and they tell them these are two-year wait. these are children who finished high school, honor roll students, and they have no insurance because they do not

honor the obamacare. host: as far as its relation to this election, what's your question? caller: i have many questions. i'd like to ask comments also about how they tell the children -- we tell our kids about acting how they act. it's a shame how they disrespect president obama. it's a shame how they disrespected bush when he was in office when they threw his shoe. host: mr. schimming, any take away from that? guest: i think both sides could agree the politics haven't gotten any more beautiful, that's for sure. with respect to the romney campaign and the thompson for senate campaign here, this is a campaign about the country's future. wisconsin we have lost just under 100,000 jobs under president obama. we talk about things that affect families, affect neighborhoods and health care and jobs, wisconsin really has suffered as much as almost any

state with the loss of those jobs and the slowdown in economic activity. it's punishing the working people of this state. what i would say to you in general terms is that we need a better economy. we need to have more jobs. we need to have a better future. so everybody's future is going to get better when this economy gets back on its feet, and if not, 43 months of over 8% unemployment, that doesn't help working people, it doesn't help anybody. we have to turn that around. that's what governor romney is focused on. host: chris in alabama off twitter. he says, we have never had a less transparent presidential candidate. if yet he is positioned to win. frightening. how would you respond to that? guest: having introduced romney a couple times, he's anything but that. will i tell you this, you talk about transparency, mitt romney's economic plan, his plan for the future, has been on his website for months.

one of the comical things about the last debate is the president -- this is a sitting president who suffered 8.3% unemployment, millions of people out of jobs, home foreclosures at a record rate, the list goes on and on. he presented his plan for the future not in the debate, but in a 20-page document that he released after the debate, essentially two weeks after the election. what kind of transparency is that? mitt romney and paul ryan have been out with plans for months, real, live workable plans for months. have been doing town halls talking about the details of those things. one thing we have learned in wisconsin when, scott walker inherited the governorship, he inherited a $3.6 billion budget deficit in this state. le it i have been working around state government for a while. it's the worst economic and budget situation i have ever seen a governor have to inherit of either party. one of the things that he did, and that i appreciate about what mitt romney and paul ryan are doing, is talking straight

to the people about what the issues are that are facing this country. you don't have to be republican or democrat to know, we have big problems. the question i think that folks have to face here in this election is who is providing that path into the future that's going to solve some of those problems? and mitt romney and paul ryan have been talking about them. host: from newport richie, florida. republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. schimming. hello, pedro. i haven't called in a while. i'm nervous. tomorrow morning at 7:00, early voting opens here in florida. i'm in the tampa bay area. and i would like to ask you a couple of things about mitt romney. i'm edging towards him. i understand that gender was the question this morning, as i understand obama did sign into law, what is it, the lily ledbetter act?

host: lily ledbetter act? caller: i like that. but he also signed the lesbian and gay transgender thing into the military. we have a very high rape incident in the military. and i'd like to know, because of gender issues, how mitt romney stands on that? my next question is -- host: we'll have to leave it at that. mr. schimming, if there is something you want to take from that. aest: that's kind of multipronged question. i think what i would tell you with respect, what we have seen here in the polling -- i think after the first debate, certainly with the two debates, is that the women -- what we have seen with -- in just talking in focus groups and thousands of people on the street, the kinds of issues that all people are worried about, but women are worried about are economic ones. look, this economy has punished women worse than it has anyone, really.

hundreds of thousands of people out of work. the punishment to women has been terrible in this economy as a way to help all voters, and women voters as well, and that is to get the economy back on its feet. that's what the election's about. we can get chased off on all sorts of side issues, but ultimately for everyone, all these issues are important. obviously what she's saying. all these issues are important. one of the reasons we have seen the quote, gender gap narrow to nothing, if not mitt romney, is that the important issues facing women today are the ones the governor and congressman ryan are addressing. that's why the fabled 16 or 18- point gender gap is almost advantage romney. it's a problem for the president. host: this is camden, new jersey. denise, good morning. democrats line, hello.

camden, new jersey. hello. let's go to greg in richfield, wisconsin. hello. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. i would like to opponent out a couple things to my democratic friends about the republican party that are being used as scare tactics. republicans like clean water. we want no pollution. we want jobs. we want better education. i'd also like to point out that what has happened with fast and furious, the keystone pipeline these are gigantic issues that i feel the democrats are being very hypocritical about in the fact that they are letting president obama slide with them along with a lot of other issues. i'm asking the democrats to open up your eyes and look at things objectively. thank you. host: the issues he listed, mr. schimming, what would you make

of those? guest: i agree with him on all things. certainly with respect to the keystone pipeline. the president, listening to him debate, he made it sound like he's a supporter of the keystone pipeline, he's not the supporter of the keystone pipeline. that's tens of thousands of jobs for working people across several states. in middle america. that one i just don't understand from the president. particularly the case -- to listen to the president, you think he was a supporter of energy exploration and development at home. he's been the most hostile to energy exploration of any president we have had of either party. he talks about increasing oil production in america. it's been done on private lands, not on federal lands. interestingly, this is probably one of the biggest issues, i think, that the country faces. if we truly want to be independent of foreign sources of energy, we can do it.

we have all the resources we need here in america. the question is, are we going to go ahead and do what we need to do to be independent? the president has not been doing it. mitt romney well. -- mitt romney will. host: correct me film' wrong. were the republicans in the state that decided to confine early voting to a smaller period this year of two weeks or so? guest: early voting in wisconsin, at least in-person voting, will finish a week from today, actually. it will be a week from today. early voting started this past monday and will finish a week from today. but absentee ballots will be accepted up until after the election. we made some commonsense changes in the elections law here because wisconsin has a different state. we don't have a statewide voters list here in wisconsin. you have to go out and get it in all the counties. wisconsin also has a huge

number of local government. wisconsin is about 5.35 million people. we have about 1,850 local units of government. so there's a lot of bureaucracy there. so we put some commonsense changes into place to try to bring order a little bit to. so elections. look, acorn and some of those groups don't like it, but the voters consistently, and also in the voter i.d. bill, 71% of the people in wisconsin want add voter i.d. bill. we gave it to them. and now it's caught up in the courts. host: patty from houston, texas, good morning. democrats line. caller: yes. how are you all doing this morning? host: fine, thank you. go right ahead. caller: i'm going to ask this gentleman here, i'm in houston and i'm going to ask him if romney was so good with jobs, why don't he have plants and everything there, if he's so good with jobs and everything, he can count that. president obama has presented a

lot of jobs. so many months, and also with his republican house, he could have been -- instead of going -- talk more of the republican party stood up the whole country and the democrats all is because -- i'm a senior citizen here, and whoever would do the best for everybody, i would have voted for them. but you have to just think about romney. you said that romney had a plan with jobs. i have been listening to all of it coming up and he haven't had anything. he haven't create no jobs. and president obama has. he has a layout for that. host: we'll let our guest -- guest: with all possible

respect, the president had a much lower unemployment rate when he took over and it's gone to over 10% in his administration and it's kind of flattened out above 8%. the president is not doing very well with jobs with all due respect to you. the president had, the first two years of his term, with veto proof majorities in both the house and senate, and he wasted his time in the first two years of office. instead of focusing on the economy, he did a stimulus bill which has not helped the country, number one. but number two, he wasted his time putting obamacare into place. we need health care reform, but we don't need obamacare. all the polls told him that whole time, the whole two years, they still do, that the country didn't want obamacare and he and the democratic party in the house and senate forced it down our throats. with respect to jobs, this president seven times, hattie, seven times has turned down the opportunity to make china a

currency manipulator. china's stolen two million jobs out of america, along with intellectual property as well. we need a president who is going to stand up to china. frankly just chart a path beyond china, chart a path to go into the future. that would be mitt romney. host: milwaukee, on our independent line for our guest, brian schimming, of the republican party of wisconsin. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm in wisconsin and i'm only 21 years old so i'm a young voter and new to all of this. i listen to the question about that you were just saying about obama when the -- with the democracy and some of the -- i'm sorry. the caller about the --

host: caller, you're going to have to rephrase and expand on that. caller: with the insurance thing, we as young people we don't listen to every single thing that comes up, but i didn't have my tv for the last couple days, just trying to make a good decision and who do i want for president. host: as far as those issues, your decision making, how would you list them as far as one, two, three? what are your main issues? caller: well, my main issue is, the health care issue, because a lot of my people are older people. the second thing i'm listing is i don't like the things that romney is going to do with the pbs kids, i'm a new dad so my kids are watching pbs. he wants to cut a lot of funding, which is fine with me, but which funds really should be cut?

host: mr. schimming, in light of his issues, specifically, do you have a sense of voters in wisconsin that maybe be that first time voter or perhaps those would identify themselves as independent and still deciding who they are going to vote for? guest: they have been swinging mitt romney's way, especially since the first vote. there is a couple reasons for that. number one, if you're a young person, you go to college or tech school or you are looking for some kind of higher education outside of high school, particularly if you're coming out of kohl lemming right -- college right now, you have a one in two chance of being unemployed or underemployed when you come out of college because the opportunities are not out there for people like our caller, if they were to come out of college or school today, every extra point in unemployment means a couple thousand dollars -- several thousand dollars in lost income over your career. so to have a high unemployment

-- a place like milwaukee, the biggest urban area, milwaukee in wisconsin is about 600,000 people, especially in a city like milwaukee to take the punishment that they have taken from the obama economy and the economic policies in the last four years that punishes people like our caller which is the importance of changing course here. believe me, i hear what he's saying. i used to run a program in wisconsin also in milwaukee that used employment and training. i faced many of these issues in urban areas. it's a punishment. we have to turn the economy around. the president has failed. i think one of the things to come out of the debate since the last debate, the president has failed on every economic metric out there. it's complete failure. at some point you got to make a decision, a kitchen table decision, about what the future looks like. that goes for the last caller and any ones before.

host: the previous caller also identified herself as a senior citizen. what's the state makeup of that group? and how does it factor especially in considerations like social security and anything of that eshoo? -- of that issue? guest: the question will be, where are we going to go forward in the future? are we going to reform it to save it? or are we going to stay on the democrats' current path, which is bankrupting the system? i say folks, we always kind of kick the can down the road. the can's gotten too big anti- road too short. frankly we have to face some of these issues. that's why mitt romney and congressman ryan are not afraid to face them. the president's trying to get re-elected. look, he won wisconsin by 14 points four years ago. he's hanging on for dear life here now. it's not just wisconsin. it's across the country. you see that trend towards mitt romney among -- particularly, actually, among seniors and under voter groups for that reefpblet -- for that reason.

host: here is hazelton, maryland. this is mike on our republican line. hazelton, maryland, are you there? hazelton, north dakota. go ahead. caller: there you go. my question is, i am 50 years old and worked 30 years in this environment and i never struggled for a job. we got thousands of people from wisconsin out here working. saving their livelihood, save their families. president obama wants to take away hydraulic fracturing after he's re-elected. and the coal industry. i'd like to hear your thoughts. guest: i think you have a good right to be nervous. the president obviously was a little deceptive during these debates here. you think he was for tracking and the keystone pipeline. all these issues. but frankly you got to judge the

president not by what he said in these debates. you got to judge him by his record. the president needs to -- the president spent $400 million, kind of trashing mitt romney, before the first debate. and trying to build up people's negatives about mitt romney. that disappeared in about 10 minutes in the first debate. and we have seen that now all across the country. for folks like you in north dakota, but frankly in all the states, you got to look at these two candidates and say, who is really going to get us to energy independence? you look at the president's record. he clearly will not. host: green bay press gazette this morning reports that the president is slated to appear in wisconsin next tuesday, vice president biden appears today. has there been any stops by mitt romney or paul ryan this week? guest: just before i came on air here it was announced that governor romney will be here in the milwaukee area on monday as well.

paul ryan will be in midweek next week. the vice president is in a couple cities here in wisconsin today. i think wisconsin's reflecting, as we know, it's down to seven or eight states now, and wisconsin, the situation in wisconsin is reflecting what happens not only in the closing days of a campaign where the number of states shrinks, but the president's desperation in wisconsin. it's a state that freaningly he won by a landslide four years ago. host: what are you going to be watching for election night? guest: i think the usual turnout in different areas of the state. democrats and republicans are kind of watching the same areas around the state. as i say our ground game here in wisconsin has been phenomenal. lights out. we have been very, very excited. it's great to have paul ryan on the ticket. we are excited about that. but our ground game here has

been phenomenal. even better than we had in the recall. scott walker in that recall, if successful beating that recall back, carried areas of the state of republican has not carried in a long ty. we are looking to extend some of those victories. host: brian schimming serves as the vice chairman of the republican party of wisconsin joining us from milwaukee. thanks for your time this morning. >> mitt romney continues his candidacy in for presidency. he will be in iowa and making his final argument on the economy in his case to be chief executive. we will have his remarks for you here at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c- span. mitt romney and president obama are not the only ones running for president in. larry king hosted a debate for a third-party presidential candidates. we will show you that debate on sunday here on c-span. >> i think we need to have a

discussion about political ideology in this country when we talk about progressivism and the history of it. it is easy to talk about communism and marxism. as far as what happened with the comment about -- someone came up to me and asked a simple question, how do you feel about the fact that the majority of americans believe that the only people on capitol hill are republicans? there is a propaganda machine out there operating. i thought we live in america were the is freedom of speech and freedom of expression? i will not be afraid of people simply because they get upset. >> the reason why i ran for office -- at the end of the day, you have to be able to work across the aisle and what is best for all americans, your district, your state, and your country. when you are calling people

communist and marxists, that is no way to get things done. we have to find compromise. we need to make tough decisions in our country. when you are more focused on that, there is no way you can do what is best for everyone. >> follow the issues and candidates in key races on c- span, c-span radio, and at c- span.org/capmaign2012. >> "book tv" for live coverage of the texas book festival. brinkley on walter kronkite. and sunday, infiltrating mexico's drug cartel.

and robert draper, inside the house of representatives. the texas book festival, live this weekend on c-span 2. "washington journal" looking as we states. next up is the democratic point of view. this is about half an hour. host: if you have been joining us on this program you know that over the next 11 days leading up to election day we'll take a look at what are known as battleground states. you can see there on the screen. today we are focusing our attention on wisconsin. joining us to give perspective on what's going on in the ground there, mike tate of the wisconsin democratic party. he serves as their chairman. and he joins us from milwaukee. mr. tate, welcome this morning. guest: good morning. host: let's start where i started with mr. schimming in 2008 when the president had a significant lead when it came to wisconsin. what happened in that time? what does it mean for him now? guest: i think what happened in 2008, we saw a huge historic

wave for democrats across the country. in wisconsin, which has traditionally been one of the most competitive battleground states in the country, we saw a big landslide for the president. i think that this year, wisconsin's a little bit more competitive. we have had a lot of travel from the president and vice president. but i do still think that this is a state where the president is ahead and where the president will win on election day. and winning wisconsin will be one of the reasons that the president wins the white house again. host: specifically, what makes you say the president has the edge? guest: i think the president has the edge both in wisconsin and nationally because he's got many more paths, the 270 electoral votes than mitt romney does. mitt romney, if he's contesting wisconsin, has barely decided to show up here, has got a lot of ground to make up here. he's trailing in ohio. he's got to fight it out in states that the president can afford to lose where he can't afford to take a loss. i feel good about the

infrastructure that's been built for the obama for america in wisconsin. we are talking about a dozen field offices. hundreds of thousands of doors knocked on. phone calls made. i think on the ground where it matters, the voter to voter contact here in wisconsin, the president's got an edge and that's why i think he's going to win. that's why i think tammy baldwin will be our next united states senator as well. host: as far as wisconsin democratic party, what's their role now? what's your role now in the days leading up to election day? guest: we are getting out the vote. our job is to make sure we've got resources on the ground to get volunteers tout of knocking on doors, doing the phone calls, doing things we know through study and history and experience driving up our vote. so we are going to make sure that people are voting early. you can vote early up until the friday before the election. we got a strong focus on the early vote. we are going to make sure we talk to voters, about the president's positive message to move this country forward, to build this country economically from the middle out.

contrasting that with mitt romney's record. it's why i think the president's going to win wisconsin. host: as far as mitt romney and other republicans have talked about the president's lack of a plan for the next four years. the president did put one out there. what do you think of what he's proposed? is it enough? guest: can you say that again? i'm having a hard time. host: it's ok. the president just recently announced his plan for the next four years. what do you make of his proposals for the next four years? tell us a little bit -- there's been republican criticism he didn't have a proposal up until now. guest: i think that the president's been talking about his plan and agenda for this entire campaign, quite frankly. i think that he packaged a really good booklet that people can find on the president's website. i think that it talks about investing in jobs, investing in this country, investing in education. the president inherited a pretty tough mess four years ago. the by every metric this country is getting better.

things are not where they need to be, but this president has moved this country forward and he is going to continue to move this country forward in the next four years. whether it's reducing our independence on foreign oil, by growing this country from the middle out, and i believe that under the president's leadership four years from now this country will be in an even stronger place. host: vivian shepherdson of twitter says this, i find it hard believe wisconsin will go for the president when their native son is running for the vice-presidency. it would be a big blow for the g.o.p. guest: i think not only are we going to win this state with paul ryan on the ticket, i think we'll win his congressional district. i think that having paul ryan on the ticket may have energized some movement conservatives nationally. the overwhelm thing it's done in wisconsin is expose paul ryan for what he truly s. which is having some pretty radical ideas that would end social security -- i'm sorry, end medicare, threaten social security retirement. paul ryan may be a nice guy and packers fan, but his ideas are

anything but nice that should scare the living pants out of everybody in wisconsin. that's why i think -- frankly i think having -- it's going to help us win wisconsin because it's pulled the wool back on what paul ryan's ideas are. host: our guest is with us. talk about wisconsin, a battleground state. shannon is from gillette, wisconsin on the democrats line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to say something about what had been -- the previous gentlemen you were talking about. he was talking about oil tracking like it was a good thing. i'm a chemistry teacher both at the high school level and college level. some of the jobs that they are going to create are going to be environmental quality jobs because that gas tracking when they use 250 chemicals in a proprietary blend we are not to know about, permanently disabled the aquifers underneath that they are tracking. i don't like the idea we have

to choose gas or water. i need to choose water every time. what i really like this gentleman speak to me about, how obama got crippled because i don't know a lot of people in my area understand that. host: our guest is referring to the pledge that primarily republicans assigned from grove norquist. go ahead. guest: i think the norquist pledge mitt romney took. which is grover norquist, who heads an organization out of washington, d.c., forces every republican to sign a pledge saying they will never raise any new revenue of any kind while in office. which basically handcuffs the republican party and its ability to prevent this country from moving forward. to think that this country's never going to need new revenue is absolutely absurd.

frankly it's hypocritical. they don't have a problem proposing ideas that are going to raise taxes on middle class families by $46,000, but if you try to have the wealthy pay a little bit more of their fair share, then they say we signed this norquist pledge, we can't do that. it's not only hypocritical, it's something that hands cuffs the republicans from embracing a policy that would help grow this country, grow this economy, and continue to make this country a leading superpower. this is frank. caller: this is frank. i'm just sitting here and i'm very much an independent. i don't too much care for either party, but to me it's very, very funny that mr. ryan is running two offices in the state of wisconsin. he talks about budgets and all that. we had a recall -- re-election when our republican congressman quit a few years, and it cost our county $2 million out of our budget.

when people talk about budgets, but then they don't worry about how they affect it, i would like to know his answer to that? how can he run for two offices at the same time, and if he wins one of them, they'll have to have another election? guest: i think it is a really good point. our state constitution has a provision so that if you are selected you can still run a four the office at the same time. but the fact that he is trying to hold on as a safety vest for the likely proposition that he loses -- the guy running for congress come he is running a great campaign against paul ryan. he is on television right now. i think robb is one to give paul ryan a run for his money. paul ryan has not come back to talk to the constituents, to talk to the people whose votes

he is seeking for congress. host: this is our look at wisconsin, the battleground state. joining us is mike tate, wisconsin democratic party chairman. on our line for republicans, adele, wisconsin. go ahead. caller: we have it tammy baldwin running for the united states senate here and wisconsin. i believe she is also what we call the house of representatives, did she give up her thing and there as the house of representatives when she ran? i am not sure. but i want to say, i am really -- you talk about medicare. when they took away $716 billion of medicare, that scares me. also, how can you vote or stand up for, i am sorry, but our president? and in benghazi, when the whole

group lied for weeks on what happened. when the new two hours they know -- they knew two hours later the truth. i am sorry for you, sir. and you talk about spending money, about a recall, $13 million for the recall. ridiculous. thank you. guest: there's a lot going on in that call. let us see what i can do to address it. tammy baldwin is representing the district since 1998. she did give up her seat to run for the united states senate. the democrat is one to the next member of congress. and reference to the $716 billion, that was money that was allocated to actually defray costs and make medicare solvent for a little longer. it is the biggest lie that the

republicans tell, that the president stroll $716 from medicare. he talked to a bunch of people and said, if we move these costs, we are going to make it solvent for a little longer. was such a good idea that paul ryan put it in its own budget. it is a line the keep selling because they do not have anything real to offer the people of wisconsin right now. and it is unfortunate that they keep repeating this fly over and over again. -- this live over and over. that the president stole 716 million. senior should be afraid -- people as young as myself should be afraid, the republican plan to turn medicare into a voucher-care. it is a benefit we have provided for so long, now we would have a voucher or there would go out, purchase health care and likely have to make of the difference in costs. it could cost seniors up to $6,000 a year out of pocket. i do not think that is the right way to go.

that is the way the republicans want to go, that is their idea. i think that is the wrong place to take our retirees, our seniors. it is why i think we are going to defeat mitt romney and paul ryan and reelect the president. and tammy baldwin will be a stalwart champion for social security. host: tommy thompson's campaign is about $1.30 billion in cash. is that a concern to you? as far as the numbers are concerned? guest: there's been a lot of spending in this campaign. i do not a scared or deterred by how much money the republicans have. tommy thompson, after he left wisconsin, went off to serve in the george w. bush's cabinet. but one of the reasons i think his campaign has so much money, and you see so much outside spending is that he cut this deal on a medicare part d where

he made it so that the government cannot negotiate with the prescription drug companies were lower drug prices. i think this is the ultimate payback for tommy, giving such a great giveaway to the prescription drug companies. tommy thompson is not the same guy that people remember from his heyday in 1980's. that may be what is special interest friends are spending money as a reward for tommy for making himself so much wealthier. host: nate, missouri, go ahead. caller: romney is a businessman. whenever he says, he is born to come to the president's way of thinking. you saw that in the last debate. we set up here and talk about, well, about the president and he doesn't have any idea. the president knows that whatever he is going to do, romney is going to copy it.

republicans do half as good as they do, especially in a lot for college, is because a lot of the states like michigan, pennsylvania, a lot of the state's up there, even wisconsin, is following for the president. and there will not move him over and keep him in a neutral,. host: can ask there's a usa today survey out talking about what people perceive as the victory of all three debates. and they say mitt romney. guest: i think the debate turned opportunity for people to hear from their candidates.

in the last debate -- mitt romney this is one thing when he is running in the primary. it is a completely different thing when he is behind in the polls. to moderate his extreme positions. it is hard to see where he stands on women's issues, taxes. he does not really tell the truth. and i think -- i do not know if we have ever had a presidential candidate in modern times a display such falsehoods in the debate as we have seen from mitt romney. host: on our line for up nextrepublicans, jessie. you are on. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am calling to talk about jobs if you do not mind. i am a kind of a republican. i am not really happy with my choice for presidential% this year.

but i am not really happy with obama either. he keeps on talking about jobs and what he is doing for america. but the only thing i have seen him do is run some program that takes care of a select group of people in this country. they are overpriced. these guys are making a fortune. it doesn't cost $30 million to do two miles' worth of road. is a just not right. why is anyone -- why isn't anyone sitting down with the retail companies, and instead of farming money out to other countries, people that come in, and giving them money to develop holiday i cannns and convenience stores, basically for free -- guest: president inherited a terrible mess. this country was absolutely hemorrhaging jobs. the unemployment rate is now down below 8%.

it is headed in the right direction. we will keep going. the problem with the republican theory of government, you give of the money to the people at the top, and wealth will trickle down. it sounds good in theory, but it has never worked in the history of the country, i would argue the history of the world. it is an economic theory that makes the rich richer, while the people in the middle class are struggling to get into the middle class and get left behind by the side of the trail. the reason why the president is on the right track, the reason why we have had months of job growth is because we are investing in the middle class, we are investing into education, innovation and infrastructure. and making sure that we are going to lead a transition to clean energy and that will create thousands of new jobs. you really do see a clear difference between where the president will take us and between mitt romney's ideas. host: jay on our line for independents.

caller: hello. how're you doing? i want to ask a question. i am an independent. and i tend to look for some point of honesty in the campaigns. and i saw an interview during the democratic convention that was interviewing the massachusetts governor -- of the proceeding governor to mitt romney. and he was asked about his transition period into the administration. he said that was easy. they took all of the hard drives out of the massachusetts government computers. and for the life of me i cannot

think of what legitimate reason you would take all of the hard drives of all of the government computers. it is beyond my comprehension. host: on our line for independents, maryland. caller: i am independent, but a little bit more progressive than most democrats. i tend to vote on the democratic ticket. you have a candidate in mitt romney hill, his entire focal point is fiscal issues and creating jobs. but when you look at his plan, it does not make sense. i am curious as to how someone would consider supporting this guy. his campaign oppose the plan is to increase the tax rate or lower the tax rate. and cut the debt. but it doesn't really add up when you think about it. we talked about the deductions.

he refuses to tell us which deductions he would close. and even if you close all of the deductions that were there to close, it still would not make up for the lost in, that we would have with the tax rate lower. host: the question is -- caller: the question i have is, how someone would support a candidate whose plan doesn't make sense. guest: if i could add to that, i think the caller makes a really good point. which is, mitt romney's economic plan is -- give the people at the very top, the people have been doing very well, give them more money. and what you have got to do is replace that, you have to raise taxes in the middle class. what you basically do is to lock up the government. and you have to start cutting things, whether it is families that rely on home mortgage

interest reduction as a way to make it and be a homeowner, weather is pell grant for students to study hard but cannot afford college, his whole plan, obviously in my opinion, doesn't enable the country to grow. and is an example of an economic policy that hasn't worked in this country. it has been tried other times and it failed. i understand the appeal, i understand it, if you give more to the people at the top, they will do more and it will employ people down the line. has never worked. and i think that is the big problem that republicans face is -- the simple fact that their economic plans would not grow this country. host: 7.3% unemployment in wisconsin, what does that do for voters? guest: it is been tough here.

we lost the gm plant during the bush administration. we lost manufacturing jobs. we have had a governor who was had a regressive agenda that is not a lot of jobs to grow and flourish here. i do think that people in wisconsin know that things are getting better, we are turning the corner. our unemployment rate is a little lower than it is a nationally. and i think they understand that this country is headed in the right direction. we are headed in the right track. we came from a big hole. the country has dug themselves of this whole. host: your job -- is it more difficult because of the recall election? guest: i do not think so. i do not know that it has an impact one way or the other. host: and so this is mike tate of the wisconsin democratic party.

one more call, ohio, on our line for republicans, margarite. caller: there are so many people that are having to work part-time jobs. or are working two temporary jobs, trying to make ends meet because they are not hiring full-time. and they can't these as one full job. i do not get that. the pride that obama can have on that. i like you skipped over benghazi. people are ignoring this and finding out the truth about how obama has lied about benghazi. and it is born to hit him in the face whether or not he is president again or what. as you guys think that you can hide everything from the united states people. host: go ahead.

guest: i think the president has been very clear that we know that some people that have gotten back to work have not been able to find full-time work. unfortunately that is not helped by governors like you have an ohio and wisconsin who go out of their way to get organized labor and make it easier to provide health-care benefits. the president is doing a loss to help that. with respect to foreign policy, i think that the record has been clear. i think this is a desperate act in a desperate campaign in the closing days to try to say that the president lied to the american people. i think that is not true, it is offensive to the good men and women who are neither democrats or republicans but get up and work for the national security of this country. host: what are you going to be watching for in your state on election night? guest: in wisconsin, is a unique blend. about to turn that your base

democratic voters and make sure you are getting the votes from the swing voters, from the milwaukee suburbs or the green bay, across markets. we want to see big turnouts in the madison area. 20 to hold our own markets like green bay. is a swing market. i love wisconsin. is a fabulous state to watch politics and. to be a top state politically. but it is a great formula to put together a democratic victory. host: joining us from milwaukee, mike tate, wisconsin democratic party chairman. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. >> mitt romney continues his campaign for the presidency in swing states. today he was in iowa making an argument on his plan for the economy. we'll have those remarks for you tonight at 8:00 eastern on

c-span. and mitt romney and president obama are not the only ones running for president. we'll show you the third party presidential debate sunday morning at 10:30 eastern. >> i think we have to have the discussion about political ideology in this country. when we talk about communism and also modern day statism because it's principles that governance separate this country. someone came up to me at the speakers lobby and asked me how do you feel about the fact that the majority of americans believe the only people on capitol hill are republicans. i thought we lived in america where there is freedom of speech. i'm not going to be afraid of people just because they get

upset. >> the reason i ran for office is the extremism of the tea party. that's no way to move the country forward. you've got to be able to work across the aisle and do what's best for your district and all americans, for your state and country. and when you're calling people communist that's no way to get things done. we've got to find compromise and make sufficient decisions in our country right now. and when you're focused on that we can't reach across the aisle and do what is best for everybody. >> follow the house senate and governor races on c-span and c-span2 in campaign 20 12. >> one of 10,000 homes they're trying to get done in the next four years. these are houses that are never

coming back. [inaudible] no, not right now new york city. there is one family every 20 minutes moving out. these houses are disappearing from the landscape. >> yes there are 90,000 ready to go. >> there were firefighters laid off as part of this down sizing and to get the finances under control in the city. so firefighters in which detroit needs because it has the highest case of arrest son in the country. two weeks later 100 guys are rehired and the money came from the department of homeland security has a fund for things like that. and i don't want to overstate but that's something you want to think about. the department of homeland

security needed to step in to keep detroit as safe as it can be for the moment. it could be a lot safer. i wonder making this film, we've seen the auto industry bailout and the bank bailout. are we heading into an rare of bailout city? >> more sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q and a. >> next part of a conference lookingity implementation of the 2010 dodd-frank regulations law. this first panel examines whether it goes far enough to protect the nation. it feaches scott alvarez and richard osterman t. conference hosted by george washington university. it's just over an hour.

>> good morning. i'm honored to be the moderator of this panel and i know we're going to have an interesting discussion and debate. good news is we're not going to have to compete with monday night football and the baseball playoffs. let me take a couple of minutes to set the stage for our discussion. what's fascinate is the dodd-frank act landmark legislation has provoked more controversy and discussion since it's been passed than even before it was passed. 2010 it was a pretty easy call for politicians in some respects going into the 2010 election cycle because public opinion polls overwhelmingly seemed to demonstrate that americans had awareness that the implotion of the u.s. economy had been narly avoided

by infusion of capital and trillions of guarantees of liquidity and this crisis was caused by risk ki and abusive wall street practices and lacks government policy and oversight. so in that dodd-frank act was born. and in so doing, it's every major provision seems many of these provisions haven't been implemented to date seem to generate continue versery whether it's the consumer protection bureau the too big to fail policy of the government, the voker rule, the noticeable absence of reform. the bottom line is the law

signals not the end but the beginning of the vigorous debate about its provisions. just before we start i want to read a few quotes from folks who have weighed in on this debate, most notably president obama and governor romney in the first debate on october 3. governor romney every free economy has regulation at the same time regulation can be excessive. i think it has consequences that are harmful to the economy. i would repeal and replace it. president obama the reason we've been in such an enormous economic crisis was recommendless behave yor on wall street. we have the toughest reform on wall street since the 30's and does anybody think we have too much regulation of wall street? senator warren of virginia who

helped craft the bill. congress never gets it right when you look at massive reform legislation the first time through. you come back two or three years late tore do a correction legislation. in a "wall street journal" asking the reader to remember the financial crisis of 2008 when you read about the hundreds of millions of dollars trying to weaken financial reform. the reforms weren't perfect but if they had been in place it would have limited the financial crisis. community banks, increased dodd-frank regulatory burdenens were intended for big banks and will put community banks out of business. interestingingly enough former city group executive what we should do is split up

investment banking from banking, have bank bs deposit takers, make loans, have banks not risk the taxpayer dollars, banks that are not too big to fail. former f.d.i.c. chair concluded that the law clearly establishes a framework that allows financial firms to fail while preventing catastrophic harm to the broader economy. it esketively ends too big to fail and outlaws future taxpayer bail youts. and finally rolling stone magazine, and a lot of those would have bad words we can't use here but i'll conclude with a quote from a recent article the system has become too

complex for flesh and blood people who make the mistake of passing a new law means the end of a discussion when it's just the beginning of a war. so gentlemen, the question is on the table, dodd-frank, too little, too much or is it just right? we'll start with scott. >> it's a great pleasure to be here. i want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today and be on this panel with a variety of points of view. hopefully it will be entertaining and educational few minutes for you. to figure out whether the dodd-frank act went too far or is right you have to start with

an understanding of where the dodd-frank act is. while much is still speculation there is enough substance that's been said in the act it's useful to begin a discussion about the tenants of the dodd-frank act. so some history. beginning in the summer of 2008 through the enactment of the dodd-frank act, during and following the worst financial crisis since the 1930's, the federal reserve and other financial regulators asked congress for three types of tools to address and fend off incidents that would threaten or harm financial stability. first, we asked for authority to take stability of the financial system into account in the supervision of financial firms and beyond the traditional review of safety and soundness of individual firms. second, we asked for action by

congress or other authority for the agencies to fill in the gaps in the framework established by congress in the original regulatory system to cover parts of the financial system that were not covered and to allow some regulation of the shadow banking system. and then third, we asked for a mechanism for implementing an orally down sizing or unwinding of a failing firm outside of bankruptcy. so the dodd-frank act tried to address each of these three requests. on the first one, the dodd-frank act provided the banking agencies and the other agencies enhanced supervisery authority focused on financial stabblingt. in particular, there is section 165 of the dodd-frank act which requires more stringent standards to be applied to large bank holding companies and the firms system cli

important. dodd-frank required enhanced standards in a whole variety of areas, capital, liquidity, risk committees, risk management, count party credit expose yures, resolution planning and a whole bunch more. so what's new about this? what's new is the basis for all these authorities is financial stability. we already had standards in these areas that were focused on the safety and soundness of individual firms, but now we were given authority to consider all of those areas and whether there was some effect on an individual's firm effect on financial stability or the system's affect on individual firms. that gives you a new dimension on how you look at all of those standards. the other thing that's new is it extended these standards to non-banking firms designated by

the -- so this began to fill the regulatory gap that was posed by -- that posed some of the risks to the financial system. another area that congress provided help was requirement that the agencies consider the effect on financial stability of every bank acquisition by a large bank holding company and a sizable acquisitions of non-banks by firms and designated 50's. related to this congress granted authority to break up large firms if the firm would pose a grave threat to financial stability among other things. so these provisions focus on the size and structure of firms granting authority to limit expansion or require divest chure but on financial stability. the federal reserve and other

agencies are still fleshing out the framework for analyzing financial stability so there is a lot of work yet to do. size will matter in deciding whether firms do pose a grave threat. but size alone is too blunt an approach. so the agencies are also considering intersect edness among firms, the substitutability of firms and their services. the complexity of the firm, the way to resolve them in a way that's not decwuptive to the system. and the factta a firm is especially vulnerable to financial stress from outside its own walls. there is much more to do but we've begun that task. the dodd-frank act also expanded authority to identify through the examination process

the practices that at financial firms that pose a threat to financial stability. so this allows the agencies to use one of their most powerful tools in understanding better how the system works, using that tool as system cli important firms as well as bank companies that are already subject to supervision. and finally i'd point out among the many tools is an early remediation authority that allows the agencies to increase supervisery attention and require improvements at financial firms as they decline in financial health based on measures other than just the capital of the organization, so based on risks that they take or expose you'res they may have beyond their capital position. so these are all tools we're still fleshing out, it's going to take time to work them out. their all going to have cost on

the financial system and they all will need adjustments. the agency is doing its best to get the framework in position but as senator warren mentioned we are going to need to come back and revisit this as time goes on to try to get things right. it is very hard to eliminate all unintended consequences from the start. so dodd-frank responded to the second request for tools to address gaps in supervision by establishing the oversight counsel sill. which is head that oversee the various parts of the system plus a new federal office of insurance and various state regulatory agencies. they are charged with monitoring system for emerging risks to financial stability, recommending actions to address riskes to financial stability.

recommending steps to congress to fill gaps in the regulatory system and weaknesses in the functioning of the financial system. designating non-bank firms that pose risk to financial stability but live largely in the supervisery shad dose of super vissry regulation among other things. they've begun that work and published a number of reports and studies, the kinds of things agencies have to do. its published some guidelines and how it's thinking about financial stability, the factors it considers, it's begun reviewing large and complex firms to see if designation is appropriate and begun to make recommendations to congress. so it's beginning to work in the ways that dodd-frank envisioned. now on the third point, establishing a mechanism for winding down large financial

firms that pose a risk to the economy as an alternative to bankruptcy, i'm going to leave to richard osterman who is quite the expert in that area. but i'd like to end with some personal thoughts about where the dodd-frank act fits in. dodd-frank act is built on the modern model of addressing and presenting financial crisis. that is the government supervision and regulation is necessary to monitor and offset the extremes that come with self-regulation in a capita list society. and it's built on the idea that the government must impose on businesses where they take out sized risk that could have potential harms to society generally. now negotiate extreme of self-regulation or government regulation will assure that

there is no financial crisis ever again. we are after all a system of human beings. the question is whether we're prepared to accept the costs and benefits of the system we choose to implement. the dodd-frank act is clearly going to have greater regulation. that will afblingt how businesses run, that will affect how they provide services to us, the cost of those services, what services they provide. but the question is whether dodd-frank also creates a saver system than we would have without the dodd-frank act. so i believe that the dodd-frank act has the potential to reduce the cost and to make a safer system if we implement it wisely. though i am quite hum led by the idea we will never be able to present all financial crisis. i look forward to today's discussion and the different points of view that will come from this.

[applause] >> goods morning everyone. it's a pleasure to be here to does this important topic about dodd-frank. it will not surprise you all to know i agree with sheila bear's position on this. so before addressing title one and two. titling two is the lick quidation authority. i would like to point out dodd-frank addresses a whole lot of other areas as well, one of which increased your deposit insurance up to $250,000. so you should be thankful for that as well. shortly after the statute was enacted the fdic created an office of financial institutions to address these

issues. and we have two titles that intermesh here. under titele one, the largest bank holding companies and system clihitened companies are to supervision. this allows these companies to submit resolution plans or living wills to demonstrate how they would be solved under the bank ruptsi code. and shortly after last september, the fed and fdic implemented a rule and the first plans have already been filed by nine institutions. they were filed in july of this year and we're in the process of reviewing those plans. under the regulation, the second set of plans will be due in july of next year. the first set was due for institutions of $250 fwl or more. the next set is for 150 to 200

billion. we've already reviewed the first set of plans for completeness and we're making appropriate communications with the institutions and we're in the process of doing credibility reviews. now if we don't find the plans to be credible, the company can be required to submit a revised plan, a more detailed plan which and we could if that plan doesn't meet the requirements impose even stricter requirements with respect to capital liquidty. if the company fails to submit a satisfactory revised plan within two years, we can actually in consultation direct the company to divest certain

assets to facilitate an oral lick quidation. >> the f.d.i.c. has put into place regulations on institutions of $50 million or more. we require those institutions to show that their resolution can be done in a least cost manner which is what happens under our statute. so these resolution plans provide valuable insight into the inner workings of these institutions and the industry in general which and they allow us to further refine our strategies under ut title two. our efforts therefore serve as a foundation for resolution planning activities under title two, the event that important financial company were to fail or enter into resolution.

p and again we have the heightened supervision by the fed which avoids us getting into a situation where the title two authorities have to be implemented. so turning to title two during the recent financial crisis we lacked the authority and powers now available, we were basically forced to either choose between bankruptcy or bail out. now under dodd-frank bankruptcy remains the first and preferred option in the event of system i canly important financial institutionses. we only turn to title two if resolution under the bankruptcy code would actually have an

adverse system i can affect on the baier system. so the policy goals of title two are to lick qui date a risk and minimizes moral has saturday. it prevents any taxpayer bail out. it's provides a lick quidation process to prevent a decorlly collapse and makes sure the taxpayers don't bear the cost. it also makes sure third parties who are responsible for the failing condition are held accountable. how does this work? for the f.d.i.c. to be appointed for a s.i.f.e. there is a judicial review process that's available.

it is similar to the authority we used in the last crisis we used a few times which i thought we would never use in my lifetime but it's pretty amazing and it involves a majority of the f.d.i.c. board determining there is a risk to the united states, the federal reserve board. these are recommendations that are made to the secretary of the treasury who consults with the ment of the united states and make it is determination to appoint the f.d.i.c. as receiver which they also consult with others as well. then the s.e.c. is the key turner rather than the f.d.i.c. if we're dealing with large insurance companies that would be the federal insurance office. the secretary of treasury has to make seven specific find togs support the resolution. he has to find the company is

in default or danger of default. also has to find and the recommendations have to indicate that the failure of the company and resolution of the bankruptcy code would have serious consequences for the stability of the united states. i'm not going to go through all seven, you can look at the statute in dodd-frank. but obviously the company has to meet the definition of a covered financial company under the statute. so once that determination is made, the company can consent. if they consent to a point of receiver, they are given notice. if they don't consent, then there is an expedited process here in d.c. for immediate judicial review. the court has 24 hours, the case is filed under skeel. the court has 24 hours after

receiving the petition. if the court does not act within that 24 hours the appointment is effective as a matter of law. the court's decision to allow the appointment is not subject to stay if it goes up on appeal. once appointed the f.d.i.c. has very broad authority, similar to what we have in dealing with financial institutions ind the f.d.i. act and similar to the super powers we've used over the 75 past years 234 a way that doesn't disrupt the economy. some of these powers include the ability to create a bridge bank. the ability to stay litigation involving the covered company. we have the ability to create and we have a claims process. the steat imposes losses first of shareholders, then to the unsecured creditors. creck repudiate contracts and

enforce contracts that would otherwise be terminated as a result of our appointment. the statute also provides for liquidity from an oral lick quidation fund. that allows us to sustain critical assets of the financial company and its affiliates. the orderly lick quidation fund is established within the treasury department at the time the receiver ship is formed. the statute prohibits any taxpayer loss from arising from the resolution of the institution under title two. funds are borrowed from the lick quidation fund but they have to be repaid in full, first from the assets of the failed institution, second from call backs or additional payments perpted by statute from people who are responsible. third, if necessary, the assessment on the industry. now f.d.i.c. has made it a

appropriate to promulgate rules to implement this provision. our title two regulation is a comprehensive regular dealing with the oral resolution authority and that's 12 cfr part 380 and we did a final rule back in january of 2011 and a final rule in 2011 and that rule provides for the priority of payment to creditors, authority to continue ormses by providing certain services, resupment of compensation pay, administrative claims process and all the other needed tools there. in june of this year, with the treasury we issued a joint final rule concerning the maximum obligation limitation. this rule collar fice the amount of outstanding obligations we can issue with our receiver ships under title

two through the use of the orally lick quidation fund. just this month our board adopted a final rule involving contracts with subsis dares by the f.d.i.c.'s as receiver. it basically provides that sometimes these contracts provide that in the event of solvency they terminate. this will allow us to continue those contracts to maintain services and maintain value of the subs and the institution. this actually is very critical to one of the methods that we're looking at which is single point of entry resolution because it will allow us to continue the operations of the subsidiary level. we've created a system i can risk advisory committee. it's made of members and they

meet periodically and provide discussion on a broad range of issues regarding our resolution authority for these companies under title two. we've ed also held round tables. and that process has been very helpful as our thinking in this area has continued to evolve. let me talk a little bit about one possible resolution strategy that we've been talking about reebtly under title two that we've identified as the single point of entry method. and we've used this strategy as a preferred approach under title two if there is no financial company in a position to acquire the failed institution or where an acquisition could cause an increased concentration of risk. that is one of the issues in the past where we had large

institutions it's a much larger institution and you get more of a concentration of assets which dodd-frank tries to avoid under section 622. this method is outlined in great detail in a speech back in may in chicago and i recommend you take a look at that if you want more of the details. but basically, we would be a pointed receiver of the parent holding company of the financial group following the company's failure and going through the appointment process. and immediately following that appointment and being placed in the receiver ship, a bridge financial company would be formed with certain assets of the failed institution being moved over and including investments and loans to subsidyares that would be transferred. the newly formed bridge company

will perform the system cli important functions of the company and minimize decruppingses. and including the risk of eskets on count parties. and subsidyares both domestic and abroad can maintain their operations and remain open. the bridge financial company would have access through the f.d.i.c.'s borrowings of the lick quidation fund and can provide liquidity for the company operations including the operations of the solvent subsidiaries. following completion of the process, the bridge company could emerge as a new financial company and to complete the government divest chure, the idea would be that the enterprise could be recaptain liesed by the company receiving a combination of cash, equity or debt in the new company in satisfaction of their claims against the receiver ship.

this strategy has the advantage of returning the company to private ownership in the shortest time as possible. and avoiding an even bigger too big to fail company. it also likely promotes the markets in further rans of our man dates. i want to say a few words about international cooperation because that's a big issue. and there is been a lot of work done certainly in the recent financial crisis there is been increased awareness to the degree these large companies operate across national borders. so obviously resolution has to be coordinated internationally to reduce the risk of decruppings. so there is no current international insol venssi framework to evolve a financial important institution. in coordination in a comprehensive manner.

and so we really need to do advance planning and coor coordination between our count parts in other countries and ourselves to determine how they operate to determine the risks to the global market shoud that firm's failure occur. so we've made significant efforts to identify and overcome these cross borter impediments to resolve these. under the single point of entry approach, that might mitigate the number of cross border obsta cals that would complicate resolution because the subs would remain open and ormente. but the f.d.i.c. and federal reserve has formed crisis management groups. and under the us pisses for each of the us based companies. and we are the crisis management groups are intended to enhance institution specific planning for possible future

resolution and we're engaged in on john meetings and dialogues with those entities. so we're working on a buy lateral basis with foreign supervisors as well and over foreign operations of key u.s. firms. it's interesting because the u.s. companies tend to be very highly concentrated in a relatively small number of key foreign jurisdictions, particularly the united kingdom. in our initial work with the foreign authorities has been encouraging. we've made progress with your u.k. count parts in understanding how resolution would work and how it would be treated under existing u.k. law. and we're examining impedimentes to effect resolutions and we're working on a cooperative basis to overcome those. so in conclusion, dodd-frank

has certainly given the f.d.i.c. new responsibilities to address these risks associated with the recent financial crisis. we take these responsibilities seriously and we are ready to use these new authorities when they are need dsed, hopefully not. but the key provisions are now in place. we are continuing to implement remaining provisions through rule making and we continue to refine our thinking on the process and we certainly preesht the opportunity to engage in dialogue and to increase transparency and awareness on the market on these powerful new tools and how they can best be used to maintain financial stability and end too big to fail. i look forward to participating in the questions and answers and hearing from the others. thank you very much. [applause]

>> now for the down side. first of all, i want to thank the professors for organizing this. it is an excellent panel, i must say. and i always enjoy being on a panel with scott and rick. so i think we're going to have an interesting discussion. i want to take on just about everything that was said so let me get started. i have ten minutes to do this. title 1, title 1 of dodd-frank. right now, as you heard, it december ignates 36 bank holding companies as liable to create instability in the u.s. economy if they fail. in addition, it goes on to permit the financial stability

oversight council to designate an unknown number of additional non-bank institutions that could create instability in the u.s. economy if they fail. now what does it mean when congress gives this authority to the f.s.o.c. or december ignates this notion in the statute? what it says is these institutions are too big to fail. so not only are we worried about the problem of too big to fail but we've made the problem worse by embedding it in the statute for these banking ins institutions and perpting them to designate certain institutions and we understand from them reading the newspapers they have four institutions in mind that are large insurance companies and in one case a finances company to be designated as too big to

fail. what does it mean, what effect does it have? it means credtors will look at these institutions as much safer investments than others. once they areless ig nated they are supposed to be regulated by the fed. we don't know what stringently means by the regulation. they put out a number of things that would be the constituents of stringent si. in any event credtors would be delighted by this because of course, whatever it means it means they would be taking less risk than others that are not regulated stringently. and credtors get no value from risk taking. shareholders like risk taking, credtors don't like risk taking and don't benefit from it.

so they will be happy to provide funds to these institutions at lower rates than they provide to their competitors. there is a real danger that these additional advantages, these funding advantages will make these institutions support competitors to the others. now from time to time, we hear people say well, everyone is objecting to the idea that they might be designated and treated that way so that must mean it's not going to provide a benefit. but in fact, it does provide a benefit. the fact that they are objecting comes from the fact that they will then be under the control of the federal reserve. and almost every business does not want to be under control of any other organization. the fed has an opportunity to control their leverage, their

liquidity, their capital, their activities, all of these things in the interest of proventing them from taking risks. so when your company is turned over to the fed, the answer is that you have stopped running your organization. and so, of course, they all want to avoid that possibility. the danger that i see is that this creates too big to fail in a way that was ambiguous at one time in the past but is now embedded in the statute. okay, title 2. another similar problem as rick outlined, the secretary of the treasury can seize any company. these are not necessarily s.i.p.i.

the secretary of the treasury can seize any company that is a financial company and following the process one day for the court to review. the likelihood the court will turn down the secretary of the treasury after consulting the president and so forth is highly unlikely. so these companies will be turned over immediately to the f.d.i.c. what happens then? the f.d.i.c. has all kinds of authority to bail out the credtors of these institutions. there is a lot of language that suggest they might not do it but when you create a bridge bank and can borrow a substantial amount from the treasury, actually up to 100% of the value of the assets that you transfer to that bridge bank, you can then use those funds immediately to bail out the short term yesterday tors.

and the reason you would want to do that is to keep them from running. the way you present the kind of event that occurred after lehman brothers is make sure the short-term creditors are not afraid that their institution might also be seized by the secretary of the pressurery. so what you want to show immediately is that you will be taken care of, you don't have to run. and that would reduce the panic in the market. that is something the f.d.i.c. is empowered to do. and i suspect if we ever have another financial crisis like we had, which i think is very unlikely, but assuming we did have such a financial crisis, that is the way we would make it less likely to affect the entire structure panic that affect it is entire structure of the financial market that we had before. now looking at the way the act

has developed so far, i'd have to say that it is wildly off the tracks and on its way to becoming a train wreck. before -- let's look at it this way, davis pope has counted up all of the regulations that have to be made by the virse agencies under the act. and what they found was there are about 240, 250 of these regulations. 1/3 of them have been finalized in the over two years since the act was passed, 1/3. 1/3 have been proposed but not finalized and 1/3 haven't even been proposed. the vockle rule is a great example of this. it doesn't seem very hard to understand. it says simply that banks

cannot engage in propriority tear trading. now we understand what that s. it means that a bank cannot use it's th its own assets to trade. that was thought to be risky all though no one has suggesteded the anything to do with the financial crisis. but they can engage in market making and in hedging. well, how do you define the difference between market making and hedging. between market making and hedging on one side and appropriate tear trading on the other? i suggest it's very difficult to that unless you're inside the head of the trader and understand what the rationale for the trade was, which makes it extremely difficult to address the regulation. that is one of the reason why we have -- one of the reasons why

we have no regulation on the volcker rule. but congress did was specify -- i will not go through all of them but they are trying to adjust and control the process, so they created something called a qualified residential mortgage and a qualified mortgage and told the regulatory agencies to tell everyone else what those terms mean. regulatory agencies have not yet been able to do that. there was a regulation point it -- put out by the regulators -- huge of crime, not only in congress but also in the industry. the regulators withdrew behind the wall and we have not heard another word since then about when the next regulation will come out. qm is to be decided by the consumer financial protection bureau. it is very important because

what it does is turn around the question of who is responsible for a long. the quality of the loan. it says if the loan is made to someone who cannot in full -- afford it, it is the lender who was responsible, not the borrower. it becomes difficult for lenders to understand what their rights are in dealing with a .arbeorrower the borrower, if he or she has borrowed funds that it turns out borrower cannot afford, they have the right to defend against foreclosure. it affects all of the fires of this long -- buyers of this

loan. and makes it difficult for any of these loans to be sold unless you're absolutely sure that many of these buyers actually could before the loan it received. this would impose tremendous caution on regulators and on lenders throughout the process. that will slow down the growth of our mortgage market, another important element. in the derivatives field, a lot of regulations have already put -- been put out. we are ahead of most of the other agencies, but the regulations are now so costly and troubling to the industry that they are turning around the whole stock market. so instead of functioning under the swap rules, they're turning to the futures market and trying to turn swaps into futures.

that says a lot about the kinds of regulations that the dodd- frank act has demanded of the regulatory agencies and shows that this is going to be an unworkable statute. what does it all mean in the end? but it means to me and is that we're going to have a lot of uncertainty and our financial system for a long time. the dodd-frank act is substantially responsible for the very slow recovery we have had and the financial crisis since 2010. in the nine or 10 months between the end of the recession coming in june of 2009, and the final debates on the dodd-frank act, -- since dodd-frank was passed, the average growth is about 2%

with each year being slower than the year before. i think the reason for that is the uncertainties created by the dodd-frank act. in my view, we have already stymied the growth of our economy. once these regulations start coming out in greater detail, there will be lawsuits about them by just about every industry and company. those lawsuits will go on for years with questions about the validity of the regulations, even whether congress had the authority to grant those powers to a regulatory agency. all of that led to that -- all of that litigation will take many more years and -- many more years and continued to slow down the growth of the economy. if i had anything to say about it, my view would be that we ought to repeal dodd-frank, as

governor romney has suggested. and replace it with those things that are necessary. i am afraid there is very little in this act that is necessary because the financial crisis also was not caused by a lack of regulation. there was plenty of power in the bank regulators to regulate the economy, regulate the way the banks operated, and the act actually does not give them much more power except to say you must do this much more stringently. we ought to repeal the act, replace it with those things that seem sensible. there should probably be a commission of some kind that takes over the actions of the consumer financial protection bureau but not a single administrator.

insulating that person from other kinds of controls by the president or congress. all those things that the back into the statute, but it is probably better for our economy and the growth of our economy to repeal the act. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. i am happy to be here with scott and rick pann jerry -- no one else. [laughter] i want to thank george washington and the art and others. this is a terrific program and it is good that they do it every year. i thank them for inviting me. i hope that after my remarks i think it invited again. i'm in charge of a nonprofit organization that promotes the public interest in the financial markets. if you want to talk about a

lonely job, join us. i thought i would take -- make a few comments on some overarching issues that are often unspoken. there's a lot to say enough much time. i am from boston. i talk fast. if you're thinking about sleeping, you want to leave now. many of my remarks are going to address them. to say i disagree down the line would be an understatement. it ignores the fact that there was a guarantee prior to the crisis that all the too big to fail banks would be backed up by your wallets. when somebody says repeal dodd- frank and replace it, they're going to replace it again with your wallets. think about that. i will address that further. the dodd-frank act is most often discussed without context. very little context today. that is like talking about the levees in new orleans today

without ever mentioning hurricane katrina. no one would do it. it is nonsensical. there is usually so little context provided about dodd- frank that you would think that it was the product of the immaculate conception. there was no antecedent event. it is amazing. that is why when opponents want to talk about growth rates, what was the day it started with? 2010. nothing happened before that. inexplicable. the dodd-frank act was passed because of the 2008, 2009 financial crisis, which was the worst financial crisis since the great crash of 1929 and it delivered us the worst economy since the 1930's. how come is so rarely mentioned? because the industry that it has purchased has been wildly successful in changing the subject and the day from the

financial crisis, wall street's role in it and the cost to the country. the financial reform law, regulations implementing it and the cost to them, the industry. it is remarkable how much time is spent talking about the claims about cost to the industry to put financial reform in place to prevent the very industry from crashing the financial system again. almost never mentioned are the costs the industry has inflicted on the american people, our economy, and the government. federal market recently did a study that said that those costs are $4.80 trillion. no one should be surprised by that number for that it is large or that it will almost certainly be larger when history looks back. there were two copies of this report on back -- in the back and it is also available on our

website. some people object to blaming wall street for the financial crisis, but it cannot be fairly argued that while many may have contributed to the crisis, not all contributed equally. any fair minded hierarchy of guilt -- in any fair minded hierarchy of killed, wall street belongs at the top. the richest industry in the history of the world is losing -- is using its economic power to bipartisan political power and using all of the mechanisms of the bipartisan influence industry to ban public lot to its benefit regardless of consequences to others. how? first, fighting to defeat the legislation and filling it with loopholes and complexity. second, overwhelming regulatory agencies with lawyers and mountains of paperwork to get loopholes in the war rules. you wonder what the 1/third, 1/third, 1/third applies? that is why.

if you want to know what is really going on, read the bloomberg article. that will lay out what is really going on. third, their political irish -- allies tried to defund them. shapiro has testified 50 times in less than four years. how does he run an agency where she is constantly being dragged up to the hill to be berated? four, a strategically sued to win in the courts what they could not otherwise get. the legal onslaught has already started. , delay, delay, delay, hoping that campaign contributions can purchase more allies and roll back the reform law. let me mention one of the mostly the weapons the industry is using to kill financial reform. it is what they cost -- they call cost/benefit analysis. what is not said about the

seductively sounding concept is that they are pushing an industry cost only analysis where the cost to the industry of every rule has to be rigorously -- -- rigorously and exhaustively wasted. the cry about the cost of regulation. think about the cost of financial crisis on the country. it is a rationale. this prioritizes the cost of three regulating the industry over the benefits of protecting the public from that industry. it is nothing less than the attempt to obtain the judicial nullification of the dodd-frank lawn. the third branch of government, the courts, are in some cases effectively nullifying that law, ostensibly based on cost benefit analysis. it is a complex subject and we did a report on that. it is a long, expensive report. it is important.

you should know about it. we have got copies here and it is available on our website at bettermarkets.com. let's talk about that frank law -- the dodd-frank law. is it going to go too far? not far enough? i know you do not know where i am coming out. [laughter] it is impossible to evaluate at this point the law because it is so premature. the law is not even implemented yet. the rules are half task, never mind in place. calling to revisit a law that is not yet implemented is nonsensical. asking this question at this point in time is exactly what the multi-year industry attack is all about. their goal has been to change the focus from the collapse, their role, the cost to everyone else, to the law and regulations and they have succeeded. the question that should be

asked is why have an the american people been protected yet, more than four years after the financial industry almost caused a second great depression? second, it is not a perfect law. democracies do not produce perfect laws. this was the best law our democracy could produce at that point in time. in the face of overwhelming industry resistance. one study at the time showed that there were 2500 registered lobbyists lobbying during the dodd-frank act. almost 5 hundred of them were former office holders or staff from the hill. it is one of the most formidable army is ever assembled to battle our government. remember those lobbyists are just the tip of the iceberg of the influence industry that wall street has hired to better financial reform. it is remarkable that there is any law at all. it is hard to see how anyone can

make the case that this law went too far. most importantly, it did not break up the firms that are too big to fail, that were at the center of causing the crisis and the required trillions of dollars to bailout. this country will be paying for it for decades. there is only one industry in this country that threatens our financial system, our economy, and our treasury. it is also the only industry that can destroy lives and livelihoods on a massive scale from coast to coast. yet no fundamental restructuring was required to remove that threat. as a result, the law has lots of provisions trying to cabin in the two big to fail firms, all of which was necessitated by not breaking them up. he want simplicity, complexity, i have got it for you. it would be a wanone-page bill. is an international problem.

too far? i do not think so. he certainly did not go far in removing compensation incentives that reward of rage as risk- taking. from 2007 to 2010, wall street paid itself cumulative bonuses of $93 billion. hard to see how that fits described as going too far. too far in the bonuses, not very far in the law. it did not do much to many of the key organizations that enabled the too big to fail crowd to develop, mass-produced, and sell and sticking to the financial system toxic securities. that is a euphemism.

they are worthless securities. that why they are toxic. how did we end up with so many hundreds of billions of dollars of worthless securities and wire we hear today with not a single criminal conviction? that is a different story. but what did they do about those organizations? think of the ratings agencies. sec chairman shapiro spelled out their egregious a con men -- agreed to conduct, but they were barely touched. too far? not far enough. i could go on but i won't. let me address one of the key arguments of the law. of the law went too far crowd. the regulation of main street -- wall street will kill main street, stifling growth and unemployment. no, not our profits, revenue bonuses. we will not talk about that. if you do that, you will hurt yourself. it will hurt your growth and employment. there is nothing in dodd-frank

that could do as much damage in this country as the last financial crisis did or, importantly, what the next financial crisis is going to do. there is utterly no comparison. second, let's look at history. the financial industry have the heaviest ready licit -- regulation in history for about 70 years after the great depression. yet, our country prospered, we built the biggest, brightest, welty as middle-class in the history of the world. american businesses across the board thrived. and wall street profitably ruled the world. think about it. all during the heaviest regulation ever. what happened? the regulation and non regulation rise to the brink of the second great depression. in just seven years or so. that is what history shows. 70 years of prosperity with heavy regulation and historic

collapse after seven or so years of virtually no regulation. but when you hear the industry wining, as they will not stop doing, about the cost to them up a financial or firm, first remember the cost of the crisis to the american people, which they virtually never mentioned. i will mention it on our website, bettermarkets.com. [laughter] there are virtually no new cost imposed on financial reform. the real issue is who pays those costs and win. this is the choice. the industry pays them due to regulations designed to prevent crisis, failure, and bailout. for society and taxpayers pay them, cleaning up the mess the industry creates after massive failures and bailout. those are the real choices. this industry is being

regulated at the cost of the regulation -- and the costs of the regulation -- deregulation are being shifted back to them by society. you go not win popularity contests doing this. you do not get invited to swanky parties or events. i will not include this as swanky. [laughter] he also do not get rich. but you do get to work on consequential and historical events. we are looking for people with a lot of experience. if you have a lot of experience and a passion for public service, send me resonate. we need your help. thank you very much. [applause] >> i will move over here so i

can see the audience a little better. thank you so much for those fantastic presentations. with our few minutes remaining, i thought we might take some questions. maybe i will start off with a question for the panelists. we can take audience questions. i would like to close with some predictions. a lot of different and interesting views. but there is one comment. there is a recent article quoting a well-known banking analyst, who had done a worse -- an assessment of the regulatory landscape. she said something about agencies popping out rules will be impossible to comply with.

regulators need to go back to congress and said he wants us to do everything you say at once but you cannot prioritize. some think dodd-frank is too far. some think it is not enough. someone said it was just right, but the audience they have other views. what should be the priorities? what should be the priorities under the dodd-frank act. it is a 2000-page missive, but it is still so hard of a set of laws to implement, it is taking years for regulators to do that. if i could start with scott and work my way down the line, which should be the priorities of dodd-frank? >> the way we have approached the priorities is to refocus our supervision beyond just safety and sounds to include financial stability as though something we look and think about in our

daily supervisions. we have reorganized our supervisory approach. we have begun to focus on the key parts of regulation we think most important. capital is important. risk-management. and we have done the best we can to fill in the agenda beyond what congress has set for us. the priority has been improvements in supervision and capital. >> rick? >> i would agree with scott's point. for us, the interplay between title 1 and 2 and ending too big to fail through heightened supervision as well as the ability, through title to come up to make sure we do not have a situation where we have to buy health -- buy out these large

institutions. >> my view has been that the housing crisis was not caused by financial authorities. i would like to repeal dodd- frank because it did not address the causes of the financial crisis. it was a washington idea which was to give more power to washington and the regulatory agencies, all of which already successful. my suggestion would be that we eliminate dodd-frank and go back to look at government housing policy and why we got into the situation where we had so many weak and some prime mortgages and our financial system in 2008. >> dennis, i would give you the option of answering my question or responding to peter's answer. [laughter] >> i will do both. one of the things we learned after the great depression is

that there is no single bullet to give the american people and industry tends to read it -- reckless best when not being watched. do not send a 5 year-old into a candidate store and say there's nobody in there but i want you to pick one candidate and come back out. what we need are layers of protection. there is going to be some redundancy. but does not only have a bair exit sign. it has sprinklers, fire extinguishers, multiple layers of protection. that is what you need in the financial system. that is what dodd-frank tried to do. what we need is a sounder, safer financial system less prone to crisis and failure. most importantly, one that prevents or eliminates taxpayer bailouts. only one industry in this country gets its filthy hands in your pockets.

everybody else fails. that should be eliminated. dodd-frank does that all the way. it is a complex industry. from credential standards and resolution plans all the way to fdic on the other end to bringing light to the otc market, there are a variety of things that need to be done because it is only that way that the american people can be protected. one last thing. on the study you quoted, they were hired by one of the top 5 industry trade groups and one of the most powerful. one of the ones that is suing the fdic. when you hear about a study for somebody saying it should go back to congress, i would say

congress gave you a rough can't about what they want you to do with the dodd-frank act. and you got to look at who is saying we should do something because most of them are either directly or indirectly on the payroll of wall street. what do we have any audience questions? if not, i am prepared to plunge on. we can start from the left. >> thank you very much for the debate. it is interesting. peter echoed a lot of the comments governor romney said in the first debate about dodd- frank not attending to big to fail. he said possibly alternative bankruptcy procedures. would you agree there are possible alternatives to end too big to fail?

are there more stringent criteria that may prove on -- improve on title to? >> i do not see that the current structure of title to as the essential problem. the essential problem is that when all of the financial institutions are thought to be unstable or insolvent, the failure of one institution causes a panic. we have had panics seldom we in this country. maybe 100 years since the panic of 1907. these are rare events, but they have occurred because of what housing policies have done. it does not matter whether we have a title to or whether we use the bankruptcy system. the advantage of the bankruptcy system is that it does not create moral hazard. it does not give creditors the notion they will be better treated with the failure of a

large institution rather than a smile -- a small one. we need a bankruptcy system that you're some of the problems that are endemic and financial institutions, but we do not need a title two in order to address those issues. >> peter just agreed with me on something. he said panics are seldom in this country. they're very rare. financial panics are quite common in history. they happen every 10 to 15 years or so. until one of them became the great depression. we put in massive regulation after the great depression and the since then we have not had we had 70 years are or so that is nothing compared to the regular patterns that happen before them in history. he is right.

they are rare. do you want them back every 10 or 15 years ago? let's pretend like they will solve regulate. we have criticized thiboth candidates. bankruptcy alone and we know will not work. we know for a fact it will not work. lehman brothers was a poster child. we're not taking the position that dodd-frank is perfect. it is in perfect. no matter what you get, it will be in perfect. -- imperfect. you have an array of tools to put you in a position to reduce or eliminate credit figures. ascot alluded to earlier, the fed has been giving those tools -- as scott alluded to earlier,

the fed has been giving these tools. >> peter did raise his hand for a brief rebuttal to that. >> that is right. recollection is a little bit different. i remember it came after the collapse of the industry. when it was passed, congress and others said, now we have a law that is so tough that it will prevent any of these huge banking failures but we have had in the past, such as the snl crisis. i am sure if we have more time to debate it, when you think about the stiegel act, you know what it actually did. you would realize it is

completely irrelevant. >> i did we're pretty close to the end of our time. if i could run down the road fairly quickly for predictions, yogi one said it was difficult to make predictions because the future had not happened yet. it in congress will undertake subsequent changes to the dodd- frank oact? >> i think it depends on the outcome of elections. if the senate stays with the democrats and house change is what republicans and we have the same president, i do not think change is most likely. there of deep delete repents of technical amendments and fixes -- i think that there will be

technical amendments and fixes, which is what the have been doing for the last four years. at the end of the day, it will be difficult for the status quo to get really big changes. >> peter. >> i agree with that. so we do agree. [laughter] we will have much slower growth. that is what i am afraid we will have to look for what to it and we have the status quo election. >> on the bankruptcy options, that is an option, of course, but we have tried that with the lehman brothers attrition. we saw what it can cause. there would be systemic risk with the liquidation authorities.

we have to deal with as an actor with that has the results of the financial system. >> i agree with that assessment of what would happen next year. that would mean the regulatory agencies will continue to work to make this law workable and balance out the costs and benefits. i do think that over time may be two or three years from now we will take another look at it. there will be some changes to fix other things agencies do wrong are gaps that emerge as a stepping this law together. >> thank you once again to the law school and to the profs. big run of applause for fantastic panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> a we can have to go until the election. the campaigns are focusing on the sweepstakes. we'll show you mitt romney remarks tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. barack obama and mitt romney and not the only ones running for president. earlier this week larry king hosted a debate for third-party candidates. we'll show you that debate this sunday on c-span. >> i think we have to have a discussion about political ideology here in this country when we talk about progressivism and the history of progress of this of the unwary came from. it is easy to talk about communism and socialism. the principle of governing is what is a burden this country. someone came up to me and ask me

a simple question, the majority of americans believe that the only people on capitol are republicans? there is a propaganda machine out there operating. at that in america where there is freedom of speech and freedom of expression. i will not be afraid of people does because they might get upset. >> the reason why i decided to run for public office is because of the extremism of the tea party. at the end of the day, you have to be able to work across the aisle and do what is best for all americans, your district, your state, your country. when you spend your time calling people communist and marxists, that is not the way to get things done. we have to find a compromise and make tough decisions in our country. when you are more focused on that, there is no way you will reach across the aisle and what is best for everyone. >> follow the candidates in key races on c-span, c-span radio,

and at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> you are watching tens of thousands of homes that are never coming back. [indiscernible] >> these are houses are disappearing from the landscape. >> 164 firefighters were laid off. people are downsizing. there is an effort to get our finances under control. firefighters -- these guys are

laid off. two weeks later, when hundred guys are retired. when you look to find out where that money came from, the department of the security as a fund for things that that. i do not want to overstate, but that is something you want to think about. the department of homeland security stepped in to keep the trade as safe as it can be for the moment -- detroit as safe as it can be. we have seen the auto industry bailout. we have seen a bank bailout. are we heading into an era of bailout city? is this a failed city? >> more with heidi ewing on sunday's "q&a." >> marcia greenberger spoke on

tuesday at the democratic women's club and d.c. >> thank you for those lovely words. welcome everyone. i must begin my introduction of our speaker by telling you that i was absolutely wowed over by her biography. i do not believe i have ever seen a list of awards, honors, and accomplishments that is as impressive. i am sure that she has won every possible honor that there can be bestowed for stellar legal career, including the margaret brent women lawyers of achievement award for 2012. we can all be thankful that her

legal career has been spent in advocating for women and establishing the national women 's law center. it is an organization that has been instrumental in legal rights for the past 40 years. i do want to mention some of our speaker's other accomplishments to give you an idea of of her interest and commitment. this year she was a member of that u.s. delegation to the third u.s.-china will leadership exchange and dialogue. she was a founding member of americans for a fair chance. she was a founding member of the national coalition for women and girls in education. she is on the trustees' council at the university of pennsylvania.

she had been appointed to the committee on civil rights. she has offered -- published many publications and articles, including four "usa today" and "the new york times." they say if you want a job well done, give it to a woman. it is a great pleasure to introduce to you the most accomplished and a very busy woman, here to talk to us today about the importance of the women vote in the 2012 election , the founder and co-president of the national women's law

center, marcia greenberger. [applause] >> thank you it so much. thank you for that extraordinarily generous introduction from judy. i have to tell you what a pleasure it is to be here. i must also consent to a relationship that had something to do with this invitation. [applause] we are very blessed by having an

staff.rdinary impact staf these individuals have given the heart and souls to work on behalf of women. the national women's law center is a nonpartisan organization. we do not take positions on elections or candidates. we are not bipartisan or partisan. i am here of my own personal capacity. i will tell you a little bit about that in a minute. it is poignant to be here today. in 1972, i had my first real experience working in politics. i was a staffer on a governor campaign.

the fact that he died recently makes it an especially poignant time for me. i do not understand it. i was in charge of the region that included massachusetts and the district of columbia. the some of you might recall that he only carried massachusetts and the district of columbia. [laughter] i do not understand why i was never picked up as a political genius after that experience, but in fact, that was my last political experience. i am very much out of date for anything regarding that sort. in those days, i met an extraordinary woman, polly.

she was ultimately elected to a city council. she took me under her wing as a young aspiring lawyer at that time. she told me about a wonderful organization called the women's democratic club. it was the first time and learned about this institution and for saw this beautiful building. all those memories came back to me. it made it a special time to get the chance to talk to you about women and this election. so i must also say in the 40 or

so years i have been both in washington and a follow the political scene as the odds are rare, i have never seen the emphasis that we have seen in this election on women. there is a public acknowledgment of the difficult role that women play in this election season. it has been extraordinary. this morning when i had the tv on and getting ready to go to work, one of the commentators literally said, it is women, women, women. [laughter] when you think about it, it was the 1980's that the women at's

but first are merged. when whitman got the vote, the expectation was if they get the vote, they will vote the way there has been stalled them to. -- their husbands told them to vote. for a long time, this phenomenon was recognized that we had a problem. what is a problem that you have with men? now it is we have got to attract women. women oppose the turnout has often been positive up and down about. it is not so surprising today that after every debate, after all of the issues, the abundance

of talk about this is an appeal to women, how will we react to it? as i said, we are a nonpartisan organization. there is nothing partisan about urging everybody to vote, no matter where they stand, especially with this election cycle. it is so important for people to vote -- men and women. no one has a bigger stake in the outcome of this election than women. [applause] when you think about what are some of the major issues confronting this country, needless to say there is no such thing as a woman's issue.

war and peace, the economy, what issue is not a woman at's issue? there are also particular issues that have enormous impact on women. women experience and need in ways that are different than men because of their economic circumstances and their personal circumstances. women and their children comprise a large percentage of poor in this country. they are the majority of teachers. there are often unemployed in larger numbers in the private sector. they are a larger percentage of those who earn a minimum wage. they are the largest number of people who are the beneficiaries

of social security. it is women who have social security not only more women dependent upon, but more dependent on social security as the largest percentage of their men.me than ma when there are debates around our safety net programs, social programs, economic policies, taxes, where our tax brackets and it ought to be, women have a particular need for many of the programs that are supported by our tax dollars. as taxpayers, the have a particular need for tax fairness and justice.

there are some particular reductions in the tax code now, like the child tax credit. some have argued against raising any taxes. some are willing to eliminate that child tax credit. somehow that does not count as raising taxes. that has an enormous impact, especially on single women, or women broadly. let me -- excuse me -- go through some of the specifics of some of these issues. many of them are issues that you know. there are various degrees of intensity and betting on the vocations and whether the our national or state or local.

all of these issues have dramatic impact on the lives of women. let me mention a couple. 77 cents on the dollar is what the average woman earns today working full time compared to men. that has been a separate figure that we have tried to budge. when it restarted working on these issues, it was 59 cents on the dollar. we have made some progress. one of the first people that i worked with was working for a union. new out and about the issue of equal pay. ut the issue of equal pay.

they wanted to discount women's pay by one-third because they're working for "pin" money or working to supplement their has usband's. equal didn't need salary. this was imbedded in business practices consciously in the old days and perhaps subconsciously now that it takes an enormous effort to dislodge them. the first law we had that

outlawed this in 1963 and 1964 rights act also prohibited and equal pay in discrimination of sex -- inequal pay in discrimination and sex. let me tell you about the lilly ledbetter act. she worked for a tire rubber company. she learned from an anonymous note that she had been paid less than every man that held her position over the 19 years,

including young men that started after she had been on the job. she was devastated by the news and infuriated by the information. the is a policy in her company that employees could not discuss salaries among themselves. she did not know until she got an anonymous note. when she learned about the years she had been paid less and implications, when you think over time based on your salary, wage increases are also percentage increases over salary, pension contributions are based on your salary, when you add all about over the

years, not only where she earning less each year, but each year the gap got bigger and bigger. when she got to retirement, her retirement was way smaller than it would and if she were paid fairly. the supreme court decided 5-4 -- and i must say after sandra day o'connor left the bench -- 5-4 in case you do not think one judge can make a difference, under the law, if you did not file a complaint with the government within six months of the first discriminatory paycheck she got decades before, if she did not file a complaint,

whether she knew about it or not, within six months of the first is the mandatory paycheck, that employer was home free. it could pay her less every paycheck from then on. there was nothing she could do about it except leave the job. it was a vigorous dissent from justice and ruth bader ginsberg that this made no sense whatsoever. after six months that you pay is less -- second, if you know and you have enough of evidence, are you going to file a complaint within six months of the paycheck?

i will prove my work and not be labeled as a troublemaker. it basically took that decision in what have some called a technicality and took away women oppose the ability to protect themselves against pay discrimination. ability toay women's protect themselves against pay discrimination. they have worked very hard to pass a the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. ultimately, it past four years ago. it was the first bill that obama signed. there is a bill regarding the

paycheck fairness act that is a modernized and updated and deals with some of the loopholes in the equal pay act to help us. it is an economically important issue for women. it did pass the house at one point. it ran into a filibuster problem in the senate. it has yet to pass the paycheck fairness act and vigorous enforcement. these are critically important steps for women's economic security and the security of their families. now we know that women do not work for "pin" money. [laughter] women need paychecks to keep their families going. this is no laughing matter.

this is a technicality. these are hard core policies that politicians decide upon that women need to be informed about in making their own decisions when they go to the ballot box. even more important than what their decision might be when they go is that they do go. i have to say that one of the things about encouraging women to vote -- we have seen some studies -- many women who do not vote think, i do not have that much time to get informed. i do not know the details. it is all very confusing. women can be deterred from voting because they do not feel as knowledgeable as they need to be.

it is a reason we have heard repeatedly. so, good citizens, engage citizens need to be sure that the facts are out there is so that women and men understand the importance in their daily lives that they must go vote. second thing i want to mention briefly, is the affordable care act. it is a source of so much confusion about what it does and doesn't do. often what it has done, people do not realize that when they see a benefit, it is because of the affordable care after that they have it. one thing is that do not call for senior citizens where they have to cover more of their

costs of prescription drugs once they have expenditures above a certain amount. they would have to cover the costs of the costs until they get more expenditures. the affordable care haft has been shrinking that costs -- act has been shrinking not costs. it is enormous savings for seniors and of enormous importance for women. it leaves dollars in their pockets right now and more dollars going to the future. what will happen with social security, there is a lot of discussion about what to do with budget deficits, and properly so.

social security has not been a drain on the deficits, but there is a lot of misinformation about it. a lot of proposals floating around about privatizing so that people, especially younger people, into the market instead of having a government social safety net. what about social security that covers not only the elderly, but also those with dependent children can also security as well? putting money into private accounts to be invested by people, that is not going to be helpful to the vast majority of people.

knowing where people stand on social security is very important. i want to raise an issue related to the courts. lilly ledbetter was such an explicit example of how courts can matter. and there are projections. it is hard to know what the tenure will be of the nine justices there are on the court right now. many predict that over time and in the next several years, there'll be one, two, or perhaps more vacancies on the supreme court. every vacancy makes a difference, especially given so many 5-4 decisions. who is in the senate confirming justices to the supreme court, let alone other judges, who is

in the presidency making nominations is very important to women. there are those -- most people assume are rock-solid are wrongly decided and should be overturned. we have a justice on the supreme court right now, justice scalia, who has said that our 14th amendment in the constitution that provides that individuals have equal protection of the laws should not apply for women. ruth bader ginsberg brought up the keys is in the 1970's that established of the government

differentsimply imid laws for women and men. the 14th amendment was not designed to provide particular protection against discrimination. roe v wade decided in 1973, many people know about the controversy that it was wrongly decided and should be overturned. there is a concept that we have a rights that are fixed in stone and that our laws of the past can never be changed. we see so many chances. people have no idea that they are up for grabs.

i will close with those specific and just examples of what is at stake. we are not partisan. we have a our web site www.nwlc.com that has information about voting all across the country. i would commend it to your attention. i want to assure you two great posters that we have available. when women vote, people listen. one says, "will we balance the budget on the backs of women and families and?"

here is another one of a mother pushing a baby carriage. the other is "and do your duty." she is clearly a woman in charge and doing hard labor. these are very critical times when women of the object -- we have to make sure women are insisting that their voices are heard. ehen last thing -- on elas last thing, there have been 16 states that have made it harder to go. many have been struck down by

courts. we are enforcing the importance of who sits on our courts, both the state courts and federal courts. these are lower courts and not the supreme courts that have struck many of them down. there is a lot of confusion. do i need an id? don't i need an id? there have been redrawn districts. where do i go? these have particular impact on women. older women often do not have ids. my own mother is 97-years old. i am prompted say she is no longer driving. [laughter] she does not have a driver's license. it took some doing, but she does not have one now. she lives in pennsylvania. for a time, she needed to get a

picture id. if she does not have a passport. that law -- many people in pennsylvania do not know that the courts have set that law aside. women, when they get married, often change their names. they have up-to-date to valid ids with their current names. how many women are students? often the majority in some college areas are women. are they going to be allowed to vote? these are targeted populations with regards -- but it is difficult for them to vote. for those who are politically aware, regardless of where you stand on politics, it is

essential that people in this country have the right to vote. they need to know what the laws are. many of the restrictions have been set aside by the courts. there is so much confusion about the laws. about what they say and what they do not say. there is a toll-free number for people who are confused to find out what the laws are in their area and what they need to follow and to call if there are running into problems. we have got a lot on our plate to make sure of the one-person, one-vote rule in this country is respected in this election season. women should not be deterred from their ability to vote. that is part of why i am thrilled to be here knowing that this is a group that will determine and encourage women to vote and to make sure that they have the help they need to get

out there to vote. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to take questions. >> [indiscernible] >> this money you can begin to vote in the district of columbia -- this monday you can begin to vote in the district of columbia. vote. possible to go t it is important for women who often -- especially when they

are juggling families and is possibilities such as the job. been able to vote on that one work day on narrow hours can be a burden, as much if there is a line. taking advantage of early voting or even absentee voting can be a very important thing to make it possible for people to vote. and that is something that is available in many places, including in the district of columbia. >> what about the percentage of women who do go out? >> it varies from election to election. i know that at this point, women are somewhat more likely to vote than men. their voting patterns are very erratic. in 2010, for example, fewer

women voted than they did in 2008. usually a non presidential election cycle, that is the case. but there was a particular dropoff in women at's voting in 2010. i think one of the big unknown factors is how many women will vote? how many young people will vote? there is often skepticism about whether young people will vote at all. in 2008, many young people voted. there are laws that is making it harder for young people to vote. many of that has been set aside. women, young people, hispanic women, women of color, the statistics very. it is a tale that is unfolding.

in recent years and since 1980, the percentage of women voting has become larger than it used to being. it is still a very big question in this election and has been in recent elections in how women will vote, especially for single women. >> i feel strongly that there are a lot of women who really do not understand what the lilly ledbetter act has done for them. [indiscernible]

obama talks about signing into law and that there is an assumption that everybody understands it. >> i cannot say that i have followed all the ways that the lilly ledbetter act has been used, but i was involved in a debate a couple of weeks ago that was not in the context of the election particularly, but about whether the lilly ledbetter act was important at all and whether the paycheck fairness act would take things a step further was a good idea or not. there are those who are claiming that it was only eight weeks -- a tweak and not important. and they do not get into the details of what it really means for people to have a right that can be enforced or only

something been on a piece of paper that is meaningless. that is really what the lilly ledbetter act ultimately meant. there are current laws on equal pay that have real force and meaning. i do agree that there is not enough understanding of how central and important it was to pass that law. and the second thing i will save is that there is misinformation that clouds the understanding and makes the job of informing people all the more important. >> the woman said to me that her husband pointed out a little detail in the lilly ledbetter act.

three have any other questions from the florida? -- and do we have any other questions from the floor? >> what about the difficulty that college students are having in voting? especially if there are away from home and in school? >> there are things that can affect the ability of college students to vote. one is how easy it is for them to register, especially if you are in a different state or a different part -- your location is not home anymore and you'll be voted at school rather than at home. you have to register based on where you are living. now there had been a trend to make registration easier to do and to allow it to happen

sometimes the same day as voting. some of the state restrictions started to require specific id's in pennsylvania the is a specific idea requirement that was not the same as the ids that students got from the colleges and universities. the ideas that they had as students proving that they were living at the dorms -- the idea that had a students proving that they were living at the dorms, the state would not accept. that is an example. they're so much confusion about what counts and what does not count. there is or that people will not

know for sure that they can go out without those new impediments. second, making sure that you do register within the time frame that is allowed, that can vary depending on the state and location. third, make sure that the voting booths will be made available in a variety of different locations and in a fair way. particular parts of cities have very few -- changes compared to other areas. the lines are much longer. it becomes much more difficult for people to be prepared to vote by saying in line for long

periods of time. there are many different strategies in which they can operate by themselves or together that can make it much more confusing and difficult. is it really worth it? what will it mean for me anyway? of course, for students, their issues around student loans and affordable education and what is happening to state colleges and universities, public support for them, both at the state and federal support, a key budget decisions about supporting student education. those are essential for students, as well as the job market when they're graduating from school and what kinds of policies are out there. one of the big problems for women was when there were budget

constraints. many public-sector jobs were being contracted and even layoffs with teachers and social workers and others who are largely women losing their jobs. women were hit in a double whammy way. they lost their jobs in the kinds of services they were providing. this affects students in education directly. >> is the media doing a good job in informing the population about issues related to rights and what is why not? >> as far as i'm concerned, the media could always do more. that is for sure. there is a lot of horse race aspect about this -- and is ahead? is it 1%?

2%? those are interesting, but for people who want to have the facts to help them decide about how to vote, those ports restores do not get you very far -- horse race stories don't get you very far. and does not help people with what they need to know. take the time to explain what the lilly ledbetter decision is really about or what affordable care act really does in making -- for example, if you have to buy insurance on the individual market as a woman right now, if

you go as an individual to buy insurance, i am proud to say that we issued a report that demonstrated these insurance companies charge women more than men for the same insurance excluding maternity coverage. in the affordable care act, when it comes fully into affect, we will have eliminated that practice. many people have no idea that the practice is still rampant in the individual market. there are plans and to give people money to buy insurance themselves on that market or maternity coverage is virtually not available to buy in any state for many women. if you can get insurance, you

have to pay more as of 1 and. -- as a woman. a woman has to pay as much as 85% more than men at the same age. a 40-year-old woman to is a nonsmoker is charge more than a man who is the same age and is a smoker. some companies charge of 20% more or 30% more or 85% more. that is not actuarially based. that is another thing the affordable health care act would bring to an end. how many people know about it? >> where can people get this

kind of information? >> national women's law center is a great resource. we have our web site nwlc.org. we have our report on conditions and the affordable health care act and how women before the affordable health care act really lost out on the ability to get insurance coverage at all, let alone how to pay for it and not have maternity coverage, etc. we have a lot on the budget. we reported on child-care services. 27 states. the bill will be a job care for families -- the availability of

dr. for families. we have been getting worse. at a time when women desperately have to go worked, the cruelty and drying up these child-care resources to those families, let alone what it is doing to the children is mind-boggling if we are thinking of investing in the future and building a stronger country. much for thisso presentation. >> thank you. >> i would like to mention that there have been articles about how you should use the paper ballot because of voting machines can be changed. there were some changes were the

paper ballots are not turned in. we should get paper ballots and you should remember that even though there is a voting up until the end -- the hours that you go have shortened. and they shorten the hours. so that is going on. >> people just need to be alert and understand the stakes and it may take some effort to be sure that you vote but the most important thing is to exercise this very pishes right we all have in this country and for that i commend all of you for your efforts and engagement and